Bradley Riley , Michael Klerck , Francis Markham , Thomas Longden , Vanessa Napaltjari-Davis , Simon Quilty , Jimmy Frank-Jupurrurla
{"title":"The prepay “poverty premium”: Perspective on Australia's Northern Territory prepayment tariff","authors":"Bradley Riley , Michael Klerck , Francis Markham , Thomas Longden , Vanessa Napaltjari-Davis , Simon Quilty , Jimmy Frank-Jupurrurla","doi":"10.1016/j.erss.2025.104189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48384,"journal":{"name":"Energy Research & Social Science","volume":"127 ","pages":"Article 104189"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Research & Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629625002701","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍:
Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles examining the relationship between energy systems and society. ERSS covers a range of topics revolving around the intersection of energy technologies, fuels, and resources on one side and social processes and influences - including communities of energy users, people affected by energy production, social institutions, customs, traditions, behaviors, and policies - on the other. Put another way, ERSS investigates the social system surrounding energy technology and hardware. ERSS is relevant for energy practitioners, researchers interested in the social aspects of energy production or use, and policymakers.
Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) provides an interdisciplinary forum to discuss how social and technical issues related to energy production and consumption interact. Energy production, distribution, and consumption all have both technical and human components, and the latter involves the human causes and consequences of energy-related activities and processes as well as social structures that shape how people interact with energy systems. Energy analysis, therefore, needs to look beyond the dimensions of technology and economics to include these social and human elements.