Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

The prepay “poverty premium”: Perspective on Australia's Northern Territory prepayment tariff

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Riley, Bradley
Klerck, Michael
Markham, Francis
Longden, Thomas
Napaltjari-Davis, Vanessa
Quilty, Simon
Frank-Jupurrurla, Jimmy

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Access Statement

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Abstract

The affordability of prepaid electricity - in common use in jurisdictions where the proportion of Indigenous Australians living remotely is greatest and Indigenous poverty rates are uniquely high (above 40 %) - represents an exceptional yet under examined aspect of the nation's energy transition. Here we explore a previously overlooked element of the prepaid electricity system in Australia's remote and regional Northern Territory (NT): how it disproportionately burdens high consumption households with a “poverty premium”. Our findings reveal financial disparities arising from the application of two discrete electricity payment types operating throughout the Territory since 1998: the prepayment tariff versus the residential tariff plus fixed daily supply charge. By appraising three decades of NT Electricity Pricing Orders (EPOs) we highlight the mechanism by which prepay households using more than a threshold rate of electricity - that has varied over time - are penalized financially. Using known rates of household energy consumption, we demonstrate that while a subset of households are better off, prepay imposes an annual premium of AUD$57–$253 on those with higher consumption (26-48kWh daily in 2018/19) - homes that incongruously experience both an elevated risk of disconnection during temperature extremes and greater energy expenses than all other Territorians. Our perspective complicates the trope that prepay is a fairer way to distribute energy costs in Australia's most remote jurisdiction.

Description

Citation

Source

Energy Research and Social Science

Book Title

Entity type

Publication

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until