Surprise! Teal energy scheme just a sneaky handout to the well-off

Those unable to afford batteries and solar panels will wind up footing the bill for those who do, transferring money from the working class to the wealthy, writes Cristina Talacko.

Australia’s energy system is in trouble. Power bills are soaring, grid instability is worsening, and policymakers seem more interested in greenwashing than real reform.

Take the Teals, for example, who are often regarded as reasonable, level-headed, and intelligent voices in Australian politics.

Yet their policies are deeply flawed feel-good initiatives that may sound appealing but are ultimately elitist, subsidy-dependent, and financially senseless.

Sophie Scamps and Allegra Spender are leading the charge, selling Australians a green energy dream that, in reality, is nothing more than an expensive illusion.

Scamps proposes $1.5 billion per year in battery subsidies, covering up to $5,000 per household.

Spender is pushing for zero-interest loans of up to $25,000 for homeowners and tax incentives for landlords to install solar panels and batteries.

A property in Sydney's Darling Point has solar panels and a Tesla battery wall, but such green luxuries are not affordable for home-owners in less affluent suburbs.

On the surface, these may seem like separate policies, but when combined, they amount to billions in taxpayer funds poured into household upgrades that benefit only a select group of Australians, and, conveniently, the industries that stand to benefit the most.

Worse: the numbers don’t even add up. A typical home battery costs between $10,000 and $15,000 to install.

Teal independents Sophie Scamps and Allegra Spender are selling Australians a green energy dream that, in reality, is nothing more than an expensive illusion. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

Even with a $5,000 subsidy, homeowners are still out-of-pocket by at least $10,000.

By the time a household sees any financial benefit, they’ll need to buy another battery, locking them into a never-ending cycle of investment. And taxpayers? They’ll be footing the bill again in another decade.

Then there’s Spender’s plan. She says it will lower power bills for 800,000 households through loans and incentives, but what about the remaining 10 million Australian homes?

What about apartment dwellers who cannot benefit from this scheme? And why should taxpayers fund upgrades that primarily benefit homeowners and landlords?

This is not a solution for all Australians — it’s a wealth transfer to those who can already afford solar panels and batteries.

These policies are regressive. While some households enjoy a power bill reduction, someone still has to cover the fixed costs of running the energy system. That burden doesn’t disappear just because a minority installs solar panels and batteries, it simply shifts to those without them.

In other words, as more people take advantage of subsidies, the remaining grid users (often renters, lower-income families, and those in apartments) will see their power bills rise because network costs still need to be recovered.

This is exactly what happened in California, where years of aggressive renewable subsidies led to some of the highest electricity prices in the U.S.

This family has home batteries of the sort that would be subsidised under the Teals’ plan. Picture: Richard Dobson

And then there’s the elephant in the room: battery replacement and disposal. Batteries don’t last forever. Once they reach the end of their lifespan (10-15 years), they must be replaced, leading to another round of taxpayer-funded subsidies.

At the end of the day, this scheme conveniently benefits the solar and battery industry, which is exactly what the Smart Energy Council, one of the biggest backers of these policies, represents. This is not about lowering energy costs for all Australians. It’s about propping up an industry that relies on government handouts. If these technologies were truly cost-effective, they wouldn’t need constant taxpayer subsidies.

Instead of throwing billions at individual households, Australia needs system-wide reforms that lower energy costs for everyone. That means investing in reliable, firm power sources like nuclear and gas to stabilise the grid. It means upgrading transmission infrastructure to reduce inefficiencies and ensuring electricity tariffs reflect real supply and demand instead of being distorted by endless subsidies. It also means ending the policy madness that keeps throwing good money after bad while refusing to address the root causes of our energy crisis.

But the Teals aren’t interested in real solutions. They oppose other clean technologies like nuclear energy, not because of any rational policy argument, but because it doesn’t align with the interests of the renewable sector that supports them. If they truly cared about emissions reduction, the environment and energy security, they’d be advocating for a balanced mix of low-carbon technologies, including nuclear. Instead, they champion policies that funnel billions into a flawed, fragmented system that benefits a select few while pushing up costs for everyone else.

Australians are being sold an expensive illusion. The Teals’ battery subsidies won’t fix the grid, won’t lower energy costs in a meaningful way, and won’t make power more reliable. What they will do is entrench a two-tier system where those who can afford private energy solutions get even more taxpayer support, while the rest of the country is left paying higher power bills to cover the shortfall.

And here’s what I believe taxpayers are really thinking: Why should I be forced to pay for someone else’s home battery system?

Cristina Talacko is CEO of the Coalition for Conservation

Originally published as Surprise! Teal energy scheme just a sneaky handout to the well-off