{"data":{"id":"sbm395dd261fbb39e1ee2475","short_id":40,"created":"2025-11-27T23:50:37.307Z","space_id":"spc38bf5a4130666a5ccd765","project_id":"prj38bdad552e555e1c7f990","org_id":"org20ee740c8b3c21feb3566","content":{"zovp5q48":"AGL","do-you-agree-to_8cb784":"yes_i_agree","upload-a-submiss_9dbd27":"fil39c54738a492aa2a527f2"},"is_topic":false,"title":null,"count_replies":0,"closed":false,"reply_to_id":null,"last_activity":null,"reactions":{},"_files":{"fil39c54738a492aa2a527f2":{"id":"fil39c54738a492aa2a527f2","bucket":"files-au-climate","remote_path":"climate-au/p/prj38bdad552e555e1c7f990/submission/spc38bf5a4130666a5ccd765/AGL_DCCEEW_Solar_Sharer_Offer_Submission_Redacted_FOR_PUBLICATION_Redacted.c8094c0a.pdf","url":"https://storage.googleapis.com/files-au-climate/climate-au/p/prj38bdad552e555e1c7f990/submission/spc38bf5a4130666a5ccd765/AGL_DCCEEW_Solar_Sharer_Offer_Submission_Redacted_FOR_PUBLICATION_Redacted.c8094c0a.pdf","filename":"AGL - DCCEEW Solar Sharer Offer Submission - Redacted - FOR PUBLICATION_Redacted.pdf","transcribed":"AGL Energy Limited\nT 02 9921 2999 Level 24, 200 George St\nF 02 9921 2552 Sydney NSW 2000\nagl.com.au Locked Bag 1837\nABN: 74 115 061 375 St Leonards NSW 2065\n\nAustralian Government\nDepartment of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water\nSubmitted online\n\n28 November 2025\n\nSolar Sharer Offer: Consultation Paper 2025-26\n\nAGL Energy (AGL) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the Australian Government’s proposed\nSolar Sharer Offer (SSO). AGL is uniquely placed to comment on the proposed SSO given our market leading innovation delivering the AGL and Ovo Energy ‘3 for Free’ products referenced in the SSO consultation paper.\n\nAGL is proud to have led these innovations to meet emerging customers' needs, including sharing the benefits of solar with customers who face barriers to installing their own. We agree with the Government’s motivation in proposing the SSO to increase access to the benefits of solar and shift load to reduce system costs.\n\nWe welcome the SSO consultation paper’s recognition of AGL’s leadership.\n\nHowever, these innovative market plans are early in their lifecycle and we believe it is premature to lock ‘free period’ plans into the regulated pricing structure. The cost reflective time of use DMO is a more appropriate regulatory evolution at this point. We are concerned that a rushed implementation risks creating unintended consequences and will introduce further complexity into the regulatory framework.\n\nWe acknowledge the Government’s commitment to introduce the SSO and our feedback is focussed on assisting the design and implementation to enable success in delivering real benefits to, and minimise the risk of, adverse impacts on consumers, affordability and networks.\n\nFor the SSO to be successful, we consider three objectives and controls must be met:\n\n1. Viable: a sustainable pricing structure that reflects the cost of supply without reliance on unfair cross\nsubsidies from other customers. Consistent with the DMO principles and good regulatory practice.\n2. Doable: designed with simplicity and flexibility to reduce implementation cost, risk and customer\nconfusion. Full implement of all aspects of the proposal by 1 July 2026 is extremely challenging.\n3. Safeguards: fair use controls and consideration of network impacts to protect customer experience,\nminimise unfair cross subsidies and support a more equitable transition. The SSO should be a\nvoluntary ‘opt-in’ product for customers, as proposed.\n\nWe have structured our response to address how the SSO must meet these three objectives.\n\nShould you have any questions in relation to this submission, please contact Kyle Auret (Senior Manager\nRegulation) at .\n\nYours sincerely,\n\nRalph Griffiths\nGM Policy and Market Regulation\nAGL key points and recommendations\n\nViable: a sustainable pricing structure that reflects the cost of supply\n\n1. Retailers should be able to fully recover costs through the overall pricing structure of the SSO\nwithout reliance on unfair cross subsidies from other customers on the DMO or market plans.\n2. The AER should be provided with the flexibility to forecast representative customer energy usage\nthat recognises the current market uncertainty of customer usage patterns both in the free usage\nwindow and the other consumption windows.\n\nDoable: designed with simplicity and flexibility to reduce implementation cost, risk and customer\nconfusion.\n\n3. The SSO should preferably commence from 1 July 2027 (the subsequent DMO regulatory period).\nMore time would enable better design and reflect the operational realities and the extensive\nregulatory reform agenda currently underway in the retail energy sector.\n4. AGL supports the application of the existing explicit informed consent framework (without\nmodification) to the SSO.\n5. AGL supports a flexible, principles-based approach that leverages the existing EIC framework\ndefinition in lieu of prescriptive, information notices that would not improve customer outcomes\nyet require significant implementation costs and effort.\n\nSafeguards: fair use controls and consideration of network impacts to protect customer experience.\n\n6. AGL supports the SSO being a voluntary ‘opt-in’ product for customers.\n7. The code should identify renters and customers without CER as the primary customer cohort the\nSSO is aiming to benefit. Safeguards should be calibrated to ensure this is achieved.\n8. The SSO should be complemented by a fair use policy to mitigate the risk of unfair and unequitable\ncross subsidies and avoid creating new network augmentation costs.\n9. To protect vulnerable and disadvantaged customers, along with retailers it is incumbent on the\nCommonwealth and jurisdictional Governments, policymakers and regulators to adequately inform\nand educate the public about the suitability of the SSO for residential customers.\n\nAbout AGL\nAt AGL, we believe energy makes life better and are passionate about powering Australian life. Proudly Australian since\n1837, AGL provides over 4.5 million gas, electricity, and telecommunications services to our residential, small and large business, and wholesale customers across Australia. AGL owns Australia’s largest privately-owned fleet of hydro assets and operates the largest portfolio of renewables and storage assets of any ASX listed company. We are building on our history as one of Australia’s leading private investors in renewable energy to be a leader in the transition to a lower emissions and smart energy future in line with the goals of our Climate Transition Action Plan. We’ll continue to innovate in energy and other services to enhance the way Australians live, move and work.\n\n2\nIntroduction\n\nAGL is uniquely placed to comment on the proposed SSO given our ongoing development of AGL’s ‘3 for\nFree’ and our subsidiary OVO energy’s ‘Free 3’ products along with our detailed understanding of the practical challenges of the DMO regulatory pricing framework.\n\nFor the SSO to be successful, we consider three objectives and controls must be met:\n\n1. Viable: a sustainable pricing structure that reflects the cost of supply without reliance on unfair cross\nsubsidies from other customers. Consistent with the DMO principles and good regulatory practice.\n2. Doable: designed with simplicity and flexibility to reduce implementation cost, risk and customer\nconfusion. Full implement of all aspects of the proposal by 1 July 2026 is extremely challenging.\n3. Safeguards: fair use controls and consideration of network impacts to protect customer experience,\nminimise unfair cross subsidies and support a more equitable transition. The SSO should be a\nvoluntary ‘opt-in’ product for customers, as proposed.\n\nWe have structured our response to address how the SSO must meet these three objectives.\n\nAGL is proud to have led the innovation new products to meet emerging customer needs, including sharing the benefits of solar with customers who face barriers to installing their own. We understand the Government’s motivation in proposing the SSO to increase access to the benefits of solar and shift load to reduce system costs. However, we are concerned by the introduction of further complexity into the regulatory framework and potential unintended consequences.\n\nMarket plans that offer free power usage are still in early development and trial phases. Flexibility in the initial stages of development and product design are critical features of market development. This stage explores different product offerings and how the customer may value them. Over time market products will continue to evolve and adapt to what consumers want and need. This is an ongoing process where the products will change as the market and customer needs evolve.\n\nGiven the immaturity of these innovative plans in the market it is premature to lock in a regulated pricing structure with a free usage period. The cost reflective time of use DMO is a more appropriate regulatory evolution at this point.\n\nThe product and customer insights from these market offers should shape any regulatory reform pathway that will require these offers to exist under the regulatory pricing and standing offer frameworks. This approach will enable an enduring regulatory solution that preserves the customer focus of the reform and the commercial viability of the product. Without this pathway, mandating a prescriptive SSO design risks stifling market innovation, competition and reducing consumer choice.\n\nWe acknowledge the Government’s commitment to introduce the SSO and our feedback is pragmatically focussed on assisting the design and implementation to enable success and minimise adverse impacts on consumers, affordability and networks.\n\n1) The Solar Share Offer must be viable\n\nThe overall pricing structure for the SSO must be sustainable and cost reflective, consistent with the DMO principles and good regulatory practice, to deliver the best long-term outcomes for customers. Retailers should be able to fully recover costs through the overall pricing structure of the SSO without reliance on unfair cross subsidies from other customers on the DMO or market plans. For this to occur, underlying cost drivers must be comprehensively understood and reflected in the pricing methodology.\nIt is critical that the SSO is an opt-in product for customers. As noted in the SSO consultation paper, customers must make an informed and active decision to sign on to this product given the customer value of\n\n3\nthis product primarily rests on the customer’s willingness and ability to shift consumption to the free usage period.\nThe key challenge is that there are material direct variable costs of supply within any potential free usage window. This introduces significant tariff design complexities as this cost is contingent on the amount of energy supplied during the free usage window and at other times. While the average annual wholesale spot market value of energy in the middle of the day is near zero in some states, customer consumption still incurs network, AEMO and Government scheme usage charges, costs or liabilities. Wholesale energy costs are also significant in some states even on average in the middle of the day, and there is significant variability as prices can be high in winter and on cloudy days. These costs must be recovered from customers on the SSO, otherwise other customers not on the SSO will provide unfair cross subsidies to SSO customers.\nForecast usage is uncertain\nWhilst the free usage window is designed for simplicity for the customer, this product feature requires retailers to rely on complex assumptions around the forecast usage during the free usage window. This is because variable costs of supply continue to be incurred by retailers during this free period and must then be recovered through tariff components outside the free usage window for the product to be cost reflective. There are significant challenges in determining the forecast cost of supply within the free usage window due to the significant variability of load shifting by different customer types, and the evolving nature of the energy transition including electrification of home and EV take-up rates.\nFor a regulated SSO to be sustainable and efficient, the SSO price must recognise these costs and reflect them in the tariff design. As noted above, forecasting the customer usage under this product is innately difficult given the range of customer types that may take up this product. With various usage amounts within the free usage window (and as a proportion of total grid consumption), the total usage costs will be uncertain and will ultimately need to be recovered from all customers on the SSO product. Without limitations on the product, this will inevitably mean that customer types with ordinary response capability will pay for the benefits realised by customers with a greater response capability. In effect, this will mean that customers who rent, do not own\nCER, or who are at work during the day, will likely pay for the benefits realised by customers who own a battery or EV or who are able to automate CER behaviour. We explore the safeguards needed to avoid this from occurring in the safeguard section below.\nEven with safeguards in place there remains significant complexity in forecasting the usage patterns for the range of customers that will access this product, particularly as our shift toward electrification progresses. AGL considers it is too early to confidently forecast representative customer load profiles that will then in turn forecast the cost of supply for the SSO DMO price. Market insights and learnings are still required to inform the regulator and the industry on the appropriate forecasting methodology.\nNonetheless, if the AER is required to forecast customer load under the SSO then the AER must focus on the efficient cost of supply for customers on the SSO, rather than the default standing offer customer type that is a broad reflection of all customers on standing offers. The AER should be provided with the flexibility to forecast energy usage that recognises the current market uncertainty with a stronger bias to a risk averse retailer forecasting customer load in these windows.\nFree usage periods face three key variable cost drivers that must be reflected in the SSO\nAs noted above, there is a fundamental challenge in designing an SSO product due to the variable costs of supply in the free usage window. Set out below are three key cost drivers that any SSO framework must consider.\na) The product must be based on a reasonable load-profile and Wholesale Energy Cost (WEC)\ncalculations\nWhilst zero or negative wholesale price events are an increasingly common feature in the wholesale market, the frequency and predictability of these events is not uniform across DMO pricing regions. While spot market electricity prices in the middle of the day have in recent years been negative (or near zero) on many days, there are also many days where they are not. For example, less solar power is generated on cloudy days.\n\n4\nSolar power generation also varies by other factors including season and region. The volatility of spot prices across different hours, days, seasons and regions is a risk that retailers must manage.\n\nWhen averaged over the year, this will mean that wholesale energy costs (WEC) for most regions are unlikely to be zero for the free usage period under an SSO product.\n\nAs noted above, representative load profiles will become a material input in forecasting the wholesale energy costs that will be incurred within the free period and must therefore be recovered through the SSO tariff.\n\nb) The SSO is not supported by free network tariffs that align with the free usage period for consumers\nA free electricity usage window every day on primary loads will also incur variable network costs based on the underlying network tariff associated with the SSO tariff. This is further complicated by the varied network tariff structures available in each distribution zone. Whilst all distribution zones have a lower price ‘solar sponge’ or\n‘off-peak’ windows in their TOU tariffs, the price and timing of this window vary considerably. This is further complicated by the additional application of export tariffs/rewards for these TOU tariffs.\n\nFor example, Ausgrid’s Residential TOU tariff does not have a solar soak period, but includes an off-peak energy window which applies uniformly throughout most periods with the exception of 3 – 9 pm during\nSummer and Winter. From 1 July 2025, Ausgrid customers have also been assigned to a two-way export tariff.\nIn other instances, customers can be assigned by distribution networks to closed network tariffs which may not align with in-market tariff windows.\n\nEven in jurisdictions with an existing solar sponge tariff, there are currently no residential network tariffs with zero-costs in the middle of the day. As with forecasting WEC, the representative load profiles will again be a critical factor in estimating the variable network costs incurred during the free usage period.\n\nA more robust approach may be to place requirements on networks to introduce similar tariffs that are compatible with the prescribed Standard Retail Contract (SRC) tariff being proposed. The AER should explore all possible avenues to revise/introduce relevant network tariffs to support the implementation of the SSO.\n\nWe note the next regulatory opportunity to review these tariffs would be as part of the next regulatory reset cycle for each distribution network, which would occur years after the SSO commences. We encourage the\nAER to consider whether this gap can be bridged, and tariffs revised. If this matter cannot be resolved within the existing rules, DCCEEW should consider a rule change proposal to address this issue. Without this, estimating network costs will remain significantly complex, giving rise to unintended consequences and ultimately impacting the customer experience.\n\nc) The product must recover environmental scheme and AEMO costs\nEnvironmental schemes including the national renewable energy targets and state energy efficiency schemes create liabilities based on customer use. Substantial AEMO costs are also recovered on a usage basis. These costs will be incurred by use in the ‘free’ window and will need to be recovered through other components of the tariff.\n\n2) SSO implementation must be doable\n\nAGL acknowledges DCCEEW’s intent behind the SSO is to empower consumers to actively participate in energy use and demand management, and to socialise the benefits of excess solar in the middle of the day.\nWe share this belief and consequently have extensive experience in the development of free usage products through AGL’s ‘3 for Free and OVO’s ‘Free 3’ products. However, based on the proposed 1 July 2026 start date and with the SSO tariff parameters only being available at the time of the 2026-27 DMO draft determination (March 2026), the implementation of a SSO standing offer will be extremely difficult for the industry to achieve.\n\n5\nNoting the scale and magnitude of the changes, AGL urges the Department to revise the implementation timeframes to reflect the operational realities and extensive regulatory reform agenda currently underway in the retail energy sector. Currently there are thirteen rule changes mandated for 1 July 2026. The Department could instead consider the appropriateness of the subsequent DMO regulatory period (1 July 2027) for the commencement of the SSO. A deferral to the commencement date will not adversely impact the Government’s ambitions but will set industry and consumers up for success and a smooth rollout of the SSO across the\nNECF states. An extended implementation timeframe will also enable the Department to draw on insights, data and evidence from existing market products, such as AGL’s Three for Free, to better inform the policy settings and overall design of the SSO.\n\nThe proposed 1 July 2026 start date for the SSO is insufficient time to prudently meet the level of detail and prescription proposed. Many of the suggestions made throughout this consultation understate or do not reflect the operational realities of delivering the change.\n\nFor example, the consultation paper suggests that the availability of similar market retail products could ease the industry-wide implementation of the SSO. This highlights the disconnect between high-level policy setting and the very real barriers and challenges associated with launching a new, viable energy product to market.\nThe paper also understates just how nascent these types of innovative offers are in the energy markets. To draw a comparison, AGL’s ‘Three for Free’ offer does not share the same foundational design as the SSO as it is not based on a tariff type but can be held in conjunction with other existing tariffs such as single rate and\nToU. AGL would need to fundamentally rebuild its existing plan and therefore would not be able to leverage our existing product infrastructure to accommodate for the SSO reforms.\n\nAGL notes that the successful rollout of the SSO is predicated on retailers designing, developing and deploying new operational capabilities and customer collateral, the specifications for which have yet to be drafted. The SSO initiative will also require retailers to design, build, test and deploy new customer communications, digital assets, other marketing and educational materials. As we are unlikely to have the final specifications of the SSO until March 2026, and that it is inefficient and more expensive to commence work on the basis of a Draft determination, the industry will struggle to meet the proposed commencement date.\n\nAGL also raises the below considerations that will adversely impact retailers’ ability to meet the proposed 1\nJuly 2026 start date:\n\n• There is an extensive regulatory reform agenda underway across the national energy market. Retailers\noperating across the NECF and Victorian jurisdictions will have to prepare for both the ESC's Energy\nConsumer Reforms, the AEMC's equivalent ECMC suite of rule changes and the AER’s Consolidated\nRetail Guidelines Review. Eight distinct rule changes to the National Energy Retail Rules and the Victorian\nEnergy Retail Code of Practice commence on 1 July 2026. In addition, changes to the Default Market\nOffer Reference Price, arising from the recent Default Market Offer Review Outcomes will also take effect\non 1 July 2026.\n\n• Following the AEMC’s Restricting price increases rule change, the energy retail industry will be\nundergoing a price change period during the month of July, which requires significant preparation in\nadvance. This will be the first price change event under ECMC’s consumer-focussed energy retail reforms,\nso industry and consumers will be navigating these changes for the first time. It would be preferable to\ndecouple the SSO launch from the first regulated price change event to improve the consumer experience\nand limit information overload.\n\n• Leading up to the July 2026 period, retailers will need to issue NECF customers up to five distinct pieces\nof communication as part of the retail reforms and price change events. It is unlikely that customers will\ngenuinely engage with or benefit from the overabundance of letters and emails during this period. It is\nAGL’s strong recommendation to limit regulated correspondence and SSO marketing communications as\nit is not standard industry practice to advertise or market standing offers. AGL’s view is that the\nCommonwealth and jurisdictional governments, policymakers and regulators in the NECF are better\n6\npositioned to inform consumers about the availability of the SSO and how to access it. This approach is\nconsistent with how promotion of the DMO occurred in the past.\n\n• Any changes to retailers’ underlying IT infrastructure and billing systems are costly and complex. We\nanticipate that significant effort will be involved in creating a new calculation that can demonstrate savings\non the bill and load shifting advice. It is extremely unlikely to be achievable by 1 July 2026. While there is\ncurrently no detail on how these concepts would work, we are concerned by the suggestion of any new\npersonalised calculations (i.e. load-shifting feedback, SSO savings and better offer calculations) which are\ncostly to develop and involve long lead times to design, build, test and deploy. These challenges are\ndetailed in the Billing requirements sub-section of this submission.\n\n• Implementation of the SSO will require the development of a range of new operational capabilities. This\nincludes establishing new business processes, agent training, and support resources to ensure frontline\nreadiness for the SSO launch. In addition, retailers will need to produce comprehensive customer-facing\nmaterials, such as educational content and supporting documentation to explain the SSO, how customers\ncan access it, and how they can benefit from the free usage window.\n\n• Robust compliance and governance frameworks will need to be established to support ongoing\nmonitoring, reporting, and assurance activities.\n\n• The expedited commencement timeline will further exacerbate the already significant challenges in\nprocuring financial, staff and contractor resources to fulfil the existing regulatory reform agenda. All\nretailers in the NECF are working to enact a vast suite of regulatory changes at the same time and\ncompeting for the same scarce resources. The sharp spike in workload across the industry will invariably\nincrease costs related to implementation, staffing and project support.\n\n• Significant collateral will need to be designed, created, tested and distributed related to the SSO. There\nare only a limited number of mail-house vendors in Australia that service the energy retail industry for\ncustomer-facing material (both postal and electronic). There is a potential for substantial delays as\nvendors attempt to facilitate the industry-wide changes for a large number of retailers at the same time,\nincluding the July price change period, the eight concurrent reforms launching on 1 July 2026, and the\nBAU communications in addition to the SSO.\n\n• The Department will need to consider whether it is feasible for the AER to adequately consult and\nimplement changes to the DMO Determination and Retail Guidelines to facilitate and support the SSO\nreforms by 1 July 2026, noting that the AER’s Consolidated Guidelines Review will only be finalised in\nSeptember 2026.\n\nProposed information disclosure and consent requirements\nAGL recognises the need to ensure that customers contemplating the SSO have protections to ensure they are adequately aware of the features of the product and how best to benefit from it. AGL agrees with the\nConsultation Paper that this could take the form of both customer consent supported by adequate retailer information disclosure.\n\nCustomer Consent\n\nThe existing explicit informed consent (EIC) framework under the National Energy Retail Law (NERL) provides sufficient and adequate protections to ensure that customers are “clearly, fully and adequately” 1 informed of\n\n1 s. 39(1)(a) of the NERL.\n7\n“all matters relevant to the consent of the customer” 2. It also sets out how EIC can be provided by customers 3, retailer record keeping requirements 4 and the implications of not properly obtaining EIC 5. Utilising existing EIC processes and protections will also assist in reducing customer confusion and implementation costs.\n\nAGL refers to the AEMC’s recent final determination and rule relating to Accelerating Smart Meter Deployment\n(ASMD) in which comparable customer consent protections were considered in the context of retail tariff reassignments following a smart meter upgrade. There, the AEMC considered the existing EIC framework within the NERL and concluded that it was “robust” 6 and did not warrant any further prescription or modification.\n\nDCCEEW proposes that the SSO will be an opt-in only offer, requiring retailers to obtain EIC. The EIC framework under the NERR and the NERL is established with market retail contracts in mind and does not necessarily translate or seamlessly apply to SRCs. In many circumstances, consent is not needed to enter into a SRC, and there are a number of instances where it becomes the default arrangement between customer and retailer. Specifically, standing offers are not one of the specified transactions necessitating EIC within s.\n38(a)-(c) of the NERL and it would be necessary to insert a new specific reference to this in the National\nEnergy Retail Rules to enliven the requirement to capture EIC under s. 38(d) of the NERL. This distinction will have a material impact on whether the relevant NERR/NERL consent provisions can support the SSO as a standing offer. AGL cautions against the potential drafting complexity required to introduce new, product specific protections into the NERR (as opposed to a generic requirement to obtain EIC for all standing offer products which should be avoided due to many unintended consequences).\n\nInformation Disclosure\n\nAs explained above, the EIC framework sets out the requirement that consumers are “clearly, fully and adequately” informed of “all matters relevant to the consent of the customer”. AGL contends that this requirement alone is more than sufficient to protect prospective SSO customers. This principles-based approach to drafting the protections will ensure retailer flexibility in how best to communicate the SSO to customers.\n\nWhile the Department may be inclined to consider the use of additional, prescriptive information disclosure requirements, these should be avoided in favour of the principles-based approach of the EIC framework. In the comparable ASMD rule change, the AEMC considered the use of information notices to prescribe the type and nature of information that retailers were expected to provide to consumers prior to obtaining their consent for a retail tariff reassignment. This includes using smart meter data (where available) to provide estimates of historical bills under the proposed retail tariff structures. However, the ASMD and SSO scenarios and customer journeys are materially different and the use of prescribed information notices that retailers would be required to provide prior to obtaining EIC for the SSO would not be appropriate for the SSO. There are three key reasons for this:\n\n1. ASMD tariff changes would be retailer-initiated and planned whereas the SSO will be customer-initiated.\nFor the SSO, any such information would need to be generated in real-time in response to a customer\ninteraction or request to take up the product. This would require significant and costly development, with\nlittle benefit (see below). It would be impractical to send the customer a notice and have them re-engage\nwith the retailer once they have considered the contents of the information notice, nor would it be desirable\n\n2 s. 39(1)(a) of the NERL.\n3 s. 39(2) of the NERL.\n4 s. 40 of the NERL.\n5 s. 41 of the NERL.\n6 Australian Energy Market Commission, Accelerating Smart Meter Deployment: Rule Determination, 28\n\nNovember 2024, 28, https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-\n11/Final%20rule%C2%A0determination%C2%A0%20271124%20%28For%20publication%29.pdf, accessed\n18 November 2025.\n8\nto introduce voluminous legal scripting disclosing any methodology, assumptions and/or exclusions used\nto calculate the information.\n\n2. As with ASMD, retailers may not have sufficient smart meter data to provide a wholesome assessment of\nthe customer’s load profile.\n\n3. Even if a retailer can assess the customer’s existing load profile, it may not align to the beneficial time of\nuse consumption behaviours for SSO – this is expected and preferred customer type for the SSO to create\nthe benefits from load shifting. It is inherently difficult to make recommendations given one of the\nprinciples behind the product is to load shift – i.e. a customer’s historical load profile may not accord with\nthe SSO, but they may still benefit nonetheless.\n\nIn the alternative, a less preferable approach would be for retailers to discharge the information disclosure requirement through standardised statements about time of use products including how to benefit from them and how customers can monitor their own consumption behaviours.\n\nBetter Bills Guideline\n\nThe Consultation Paper also contemplates the role of the Better Bills Guideline (BBG) in supporting customer awareness of the SSO. The SSO fundamentally asks consumers to load shift or modify their consumption behaviours to benefit from the product. The focus of the deemed better offer calculation methodology is such that the only customers likely to receive a deemed better offer message for the SSO are those customers already on the SSO. This is because the deemed better offer calculation considers a customer’s “annual usage history”, which is their total consumption over the 12-month period preceding the bill issue date. It would, in AGL’s view, be more effective to have a requirement for retailers to provide generalised information about the SSO on the bill, including information about how customers can modify their behaviour to benefit from it.\n\nBilling requirements\n\n• Better offer: The SSO initiative may necessitate changes to how the better offer framework operates in\nthe NECF. However, at this stage, there are no meaningful terms of reference offered in the Consultation\nPaper to adequately assess the interaction between, and impact to, these frameworks. Depending on the\nfinal SSO construct and any proposed changes to the Better Bills Guideline, there could be significant\nimplications on how retailers provide “better offer” advice for SSO customers.\n\n• SSO Savings: There is also a proposed requirement to display “SSO savings” on the bill. These\nassumptions require more discussion and planning. It is unclear what is meant by SSO savings and how\nthis calculation would work. If the SSO SRC is intended to be designed as a tariff, then there is no c/kWh\ncharge that could be referred to as otherwise being charged had the free window not existed. We also\ncannot make assumptions about how the customer would have used electricity had they not been on the\ntariff, as this could be misleading. Notwithstanding, this requirement would require retailers to develop new\ncalculation methods which would need to be incorporated into billing systems and fed through to the bill.\nThese changes take months of development and significant cost.\n\n• Load-shifting feedback: AGL is also unclear on the obligation related to load-shifting feedback. While it\nmay be feasible to give one size fits all examples of how customers can influence their electricity usage\npatterns (e.g. a link to a designated webpage with helpful tips) this would not be possible to do in a\npersonalised manner within the bill. More consultation and analysis would be needed to understand the\nrequirement and to ensure the solution delivers benefits to consumers, and that these are not outweighed\nby implementation costs.\n\n9\nMarketing requirements\n\nDCCEEW is intending that retailers will actively market the SSO SRC to existing and new customers (via letters, emails, bill messages, Apps and so forth) in a manner more commonly associated with market retail contracts. Retailers do not typically market or advertise standing offers as the DMO does not permit the recovery of these costs for Standard Retail Contracts. Introducing the proposed proactive marketing requirements for the SSO would create additional customer acquisition expenses that would need to be factored into the DMO.\n\nFurther, this type of product is in its early stages of development and we do not yet fully understand how customers will respond on the SSO and how best to present the offer to suitable customers.\n\n3) Reasonable safeguards must be established to protect all customers\n\nWithout robust safeguards, the SSO implementation risks shifting costs onto customers such as renters and non-solar & battery households. Enforceable safeguards are essential to protect equity and prevent cost blowouts.\n\nAffordability appears as a core principle of the SSO framework and a recurring theme throughout the\nConsultation Paper and recent Government media releases. DCCEEW’s consultation paper notes that:\n\n“Customers can be attracted to the promise of ‘free’ power, without having the means or ability to\npractically change their energy usage to take advantage of the free power window, exposing them to\npotentially higher energy bills. A regulated, standardised SSO can ensure consistency and\ncomparability of offers by region, enhancing consumer protection” 7\n\nWhile DCCEEW is presenting standing offers as a fair, trusted and reasonably priced electricity option, the issues identified above will persist even under the regulated SSO. This is because the proposed safeguard around “consistency and comparability of offers” is unlikely to protect consumers who have limited capacity to load shift during the day but are drawn to the Government’s strong messaging of affordability and equity.\nRetailers offering comparable market products on the other hand, have some tools available to mitigate adverse impacts and unintended consequences such as Fair Use Policies to prevent misuse and the ability to terminate the market retail offer and revert the customer onto a Standard Retail Contract. The SSO framework does not propose comparable protections and safeguards.\n\nFair-use policy\n\nThe SSO should be complemented by a fair use policy to mitigate the risk of unfair and unequitable cross subsidies and avoid creating new network augmentation costs. The ‘free’ window is not cost reflective; it is below cost and therefore excess use within this window would create costs that must then be recovered within the SSO pricing framework or from other customers.\n\nApplying safeguards to the free period is important to ensure that certain customer cohorts do not use the product in a way that disadvantages customers with a moderate ability to change their energy usage to access benefits from the SSO. For example, battery and EV customers are more likely to be able to shift their consumption to greatly benefit from the free window. While this uptake of energy consumption is desirable to an extent, there is likely to be a threshold where excessive use will lead to unintended consequences. For example, a homeowner with an EV and a large home battery could draw all their daily load in the free period, creating real usage (network) costs that would need to be recovered from other customers who may lack access to CER technology, thereby undermining the SSO’s intent to promote equitable access to low-cost energy. This incentive to draw very large power loads over the free period can also reduce voltage outside of\n\n7 DCCEEW, Solar Sharer Offer Consultation Paper 2025–26, page 15.\n10\nnetwork limits, impacting customer experience, and leading to costly network augmentation, increasing electricity prices for all customers.\n\nThe AER’s process should be flexible enough to ensure these protections can be reviewed as needed, as the current one-year period for default offers is likely to be too long to react to market changes. Excessive use would undermine DCCEEW’s objectives by creating unintended consequences such as increased wholesale prices during the free window, higher network voltages, and by leading battery customers away from orchestration products.\n\nSafeguards could take the form of usage blocks, where consumption after a certain threshold would incur additional charges, or system size limits (kW or kWh) for certain devices. Customers could also be shifted to a default market offer with no free period if persistent and excessive usage occurs. AGL has implemented a similar protection policy under its ‘Three for Free’ plan, where the product can be terminated and a customer is shifted to a Standing Retail Contract if excessive use is detected.\n\nAGL encourages DCCEEW to carefully evaluate this option and collaborate with relevant sector parties to design robust safeguards. Given the complexity of such a solution, it will require collective knowledge to design system enhancements and process development, which may have implications for some retailers (e.g., those who do not offer block structure tariffs). Incorporating these protections is essential to ensure the benefits of solar are equitably distributed across all customer cohorts.\n\n11\nEnsuring Informed Consumer Participation and Protecting Vulnerable Cohorts\n\nThe Consultation Paper positions the SSO as a measure that can “improve” and “enhance” affordability and assist customers to reduce their energy bills. It is also important to emphasise that only a very specific cohort of customers will meaningfully benefit from the SSO structure, and in many cases, it is unlikely to be the most vulnerable or disadvantaged households. It is reasonable to expect that many consumers will be intrinsically drawn to the Government-backed promise of ‘free electricity’. Some of these customers could opt-in to the\nSSO even where, at best, they are unlikely to realise any material benefits from the free usage window or, at worst, could be disadvantaged by the generally higher prices associated with Standard Retail Contracts compared to other available market offers.\n\nAlong with retailers, it is incumbent on the Commonwealth and jurisdictional Governments; policymakers and regulators to adequately inform and educate the public about the suitability of the SSO for most residential customers. Additional trusted sources, such as government comparator websites, will be needed to guide customers comparison of the SSO with other offers in the market. In the majority of circumstances, consumers will be better suited to other traditional market contracts. Leaving this critical messaging to industry to navigate while positioning the SSO as a solution to affordability issues for Australians creates further risks of harm for some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged cohorts.\n\nIf these customers remain on a standing offer and subsequently disengage from the retail market, as vulnerable customers often do, it becomes extremely difficult to re-establish meaningful contact, provide hardship support move them off the standing offer and onto a more suitable market offer, and ensure that concessions and other payment support are correctly applied.\n\nAGL urges the Department to be clear and transparent in its public messaging from the onset and to articulate which customers are most likely to benefit from the SSO, rather than relying on industry to manage consumer expectations.\n\n12","size":290978,"redacted":[],"meta":{"name":"AGL_DCCEEW_Solar_Sharer_Offer_Submission_Redacted_FOR_PUBLICATION_Redacted.c8094c0a.pdf","local_path":"files/Jaus20wu_yajSCxTPzLLXKin.pdf","transcribe_error":null,"transcribe_status":null},"config":{}},"fil395dcf5ca0b36b914fa76":{"id":"fil395dcf5ca0b36b914fa76","bucket":"files-au-climate","remote_path":"climate-au/p/prj38bdad552e555e1c7f990/submission/spc38bf5a4130666a5ccd765/AGL_DCCEEW_Solar_Sharer_Offer_Submission_CONFIDENTIAL.66b5a0e2.pdf","filename":"AGL - DCCEEW Solar Sharer Offer Submission - CONFIDENTIAL.pdf","transcribed":null,"size":296787,"redacted":[],"config":{}}}}}