Question:
You are given the full text of a scientific research paper.

    Summarize the **research methods** used in the study in a way that is informative for policy audiences. Your response should:
    - Describe the overall study design, data sources, tools, and models used
    - Avoid unnecessary technical details or equations
    - Use accessible but precise language

    Write a short paragraph suitable for the “Scientific Research Study Methods” section of a policy brief.

    Scientific Research Paper:
    Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
92
nature energy
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
Geographies of regulatory disparity
underlying Australia’s energy transition
Lee V. White
  1
, Bradley Riley
  2, Sally Wilson
  1,3, Francis Markham
  2,
Lily O’Neill
  4, Michael Klerck
  2,5 & Vanessa Napaltjari Davis
  2,5
Disparities in electricity retail regulatory protections will see some
consumers approaching energy transition from an uneven footing. Here
we examine the spatial organization of regulatory inequities in Australia
by mapping electricity legal protections for settlements nationwide.
Multiple logistic regression (n = 2,996) identifies the geographic and
socio-demographic characteristics of settlements likely to be underserved
by regulations to: protect life-support customers, guarantee service levels,
clarify connection requirements for rooftop solar, require disconnection
reporting and set clear and independent complaints processes. Assessing
whether communities receive fewer than four of five protections, we
find that Indigenous communities are 15% more likely to be underserved
across multiple metrics and remote communities are 18% more likely to be
underserved. These groups overlap. Those communities whose lands are
rich in resources necessary for energy transition are simultaneously at risk
of non-recognition of their own energy needs under current regulation,
requiring policy remedies for a just transition.
Internationally there is a movement to achieve a just transition to renew-
able energy sources, where just transition encompasses broad elements
of energy justice beyond employment outcomes1,2. Calls for a just tran-
sition necessarily recognize that new energy systems will be built on
and potentially reproduce the winners and losers of existing energy
systems3. Within current energy systems, groups at the spatial periph-
ery are at high risk of having their energy needs under-recognized and
procedurally neglected4,5. Many communities hosting new renewable
energy developments, particularly Indigenous communities, face pro-
cedural injustices in the form of limited access to decision-making
procedures for developments on their lands6–8. There is a need to bet-
ter understand the spatial and socio-demographic characteristics of
communities facing non-recognition in protections afforded by present
day electricity retail regulations, wherein non-recognition refers to the
needs of certain groups being neglected or ignored4.
Australia, home to one of the oldest continuing cultures in the
world, is expected to play a key role in energy transition globally9, yet
the geographies of disparity in the present day regulations governing
consumer electricity retail are largely invisible. Australia is assumed
to have achieved the goal of universal access to energy for all, with
an electricity rate of 100% (ref. 10), but this presumed ubiquity belies
persistent disparity in who experiences energy insecurity and where
they reside11–19. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (prepay) custom-
ers in Australia’s remote Northern Territory (NT) are more likely to
experience ‘self-disconnection’ during temperature extremes, which
climate change only makes more frequent19. As seen during the COVID-
19 pandemic and recent cost-of-living crises, regulatory difference
shapes access to financial support for essential home energy services
such as refrigeration and space cooling20–22.
Electricity use in modern societies is critical for many aspects
of well-being23–26, and differences in regulatory protections can have
substantial social impacts including by reinforcing marginalization of
historically oppressed or colonized communities27. Literature map-
ping spatial differences in existing energy protections has begun to
Received: 17 July 2023
Accepted: 22 November 2023
Published online: 15 January 2024
 Check for updates
1School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 2Centre for
Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 3Crawford School of Public
Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 4Melbourne Climate Futures, University of Melbourne, Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia. 5Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia.
 e-mail: lee.white@anu.edu.au

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
93
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
protections, guaranteed service levels and disconnection reporting
that are ubiquitous for residential customers within urban and regional
areas are often absent in remote settlements. Remote settlements and
settlements with majority Indigenous population are respectively 18%
and 15% more likely to lack comprehensive regulatory and legal protec-
tions compared with non-remote and non-Indigenous settlements.
These findings show that some communities face energy transition
from an uneven footing in Australia and that action is needed to support
a just transition to avoid reproducing or exacerbating non-recognition
in future energy systems.
Australian electricity retail regulation context
Australia is a large country (7.7 million km2 compared with the 8 mil-
lion km2 of the contiguous United States), with grid infrastructure
concentrated on the east coast and not connected across the whole
demonstrate the extent of these disparities, including mapping dif-
ferences in disconnection protections in both the United States and
European Union28–30. Yet, nationwide mapping of regulations across
more granular geographies remains underexplored. Interview-based
work has identified that peripheral locations in Wales face challenges
accessing energy services31 and that electricity governance arrange-
ments in Rio de Janeiro are negotiated and permitted to vary based in
part on perceived commercial risk within different parts of the city32.
Existing geospatial studies regularly focus on single metrics28, with an
emerging focus on intersectionality related to: material precarities33,
energy and transport insecurity34, internet and energy insecurity35 and
remedial policy during times of crisis36–38.
Our study identifies settlements with fewer extant legal protec-
tions for electricity services, mapping those at risk of further exclu-
sion from the benefits of energy transition. We find that life support
Australian
Capital
Territory
Victoria
Tasmania
Western
Australia
Northern
Territory
South
Australia
Queensland
New
South Wales
Transmission lines (11 kV and up)
Part of the NEM; consumer protections contained in NECF
Isolated networks; consumer protections contained in NECF
Part of the NEM; consumer protections contained in NECF with unique state derogations for prepay customers
Isolated networks; consumer protections contained in NECF with unique state derogations for prepay customers
Part of the NEM; consumer protections contained in state energy laws, including the Energy Retail Code of Practice
Isolated networks; consumer protections contained in operating licences and local codes
Some interconnected and isolated networks; consumer protections contained in local codes
Some interconnected and isolated networks; limited consumer protections contained in local codes
Isolated networks; no uniform or codified consumer protections for electricity customers
150
140
130
 Longitude (° E)
Longitude (° E)
120
150
140
130
120
40
20
Latitude (° S)
30
10
Fig. 1 | Overview of electricity retail regulatory environment and
transmission infrastructure by location in Australia as of July 2022. Detail
pertaining to variation in legal protections described in Figs. 2–5. Regulatory
environment details are extracted from our data collection. Electricity
transmission lines shown on map are from Geoscience Australia under a Creative
Commons license CC BY 4.0.

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
94
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
country (Fig. 1). Smaller remote settlements rely on standalone dis-
tributed electricity networks. In Australia, states and territories (not
the Commonwealth) have legal jurisdiction over electricity. All states
and mainland territories (with the exception of Western Australia (WA)
and the NT) have opted to enact coordinating legislation, forming what
is known as the National Electricity Market (NEM). The NEM began
operating in 1998 through the National Electricity Law (NEL), which
governs market operations in the NEM. The National Energy Customer
Framework (NECF) including the National Energy Retail Law (NERL) and
National Energy Retail Rules is likewise uniform legislation in relation to
the retail and distribution of electricity and gas to customers connected
to the NEM. It provides largely similar protections39 to consumers within
those interconnected regions (excepting Victoria and regulatory excep-
tions; Fig. 1 and Supplementary Note 1). Evolution of electricity retail
regulation in WA and the NT, alongside regulatory exceptions and the
existence of small and isolated networks within NEM states (for exam-
ple, in South Australia (SA); Supplementary Note 2), has given rise to
different electricity retail regulations across the country (Fig. 1). Not
all settlements are covered by legislative protections for electricity,
most notably in the NT and WA (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Note 3).
The NERL recognizes the principles that the supply of energy is
an essential service for residential customers and that disconnection
of premises of a hardship customer due to inability to pay energy bills
should be a last-resort option, but Australia does not ban disconnec-
tions for non-payment except for (most) life-support customers and
(some) moratoria during the COVID-19 pandemic38. Some international
regulatory environments recognize the essential nature of electricity
more strongly (Supplementary Note 4). Permissible payment types in
Australia vary by jurisdiction: prepayment metering, where customers
pay for electricity before using it and are disconnected if the meter
runs out of ‘credit’, is allowed in some parts of the country, yet is pro-
hibited in Australia’s most populous states (Supplementary Table 1).
Internationally, prepay consumer protections commonly differ from
those available to post-pay customers40. Prepay is not a traditional
customer–utility relationship (advance payment contractually resem-
bling exchange of goods rather than an essential service). It is lightly
regulated in most countries and has generated controversies associ-
ated with customer well-being41.
Australian settlements underserved by electricity
regulation
We reviewed each of the 284 documents recording legal protections
pertaining to 3,047 settlements across Australia as of 1 July 2022, includ-
ing those small settlements with fewer than 200 people. Of these 3,047
settlements, the 51 settlements missing data on relative socio-economic
advantage are included in mapping but not the subsequent statistical
analyses. Our review indicates that an estimated 5 million Australians
(approximately 20% of the population) are living in settlements where
not all customers are guaranteed protections across the five dimen-
sions of life support, rooftop solar connection, disconnection report-
ing, guaranteed service levels and clear and independent complaints
processes (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 2). Figure 2 summarizes the
findings of legal protections reviewed across these five indicators and
illustrates the compounding disparities; a settlement was considered
to lack protections if not all customers (both prepay and post-pay) were
guaranteed that protection.
We use multiple logistic regression to examine whether remote
communities and Indigenous communities are statistically more
likely to be underserved by electricity regulations. Five dependent
variables associated with legislative protections are examined: (1)
life-support protections, (2) guaranteed service levels, (3) clear solar
connection processes, (4) disconnection reporting requirements
and (5) complaints process clarity and independence. To give con-
text to our regulatory review, we spoke to community and regulatory
organizations whose remit includes electricity access (12 organizations,
32 individuals) who recommended creation of a sixth indicator, ‘under-
served on multiple metrics’, indicating that a settlement received fewer
than four of five protections (that is, is not a blue cross in Fig. 2; compris-
ing a population of approximately 290,000 residents). Analyses control
for the settlement population and the Index of Relative Socio-economic
Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD).
Remote settlements and Indigenous settlements are more likely
to be underserved on multiple metrics (model 6). Remote settlements
are 18% more likely (vs urban and regional) to be underserved on mul-
tiple metrics, and Indigenous settlements are 15% more likely (vs not
majority Indigenous) to be underserved on multiple metrics (margins
contrast, p = 0.000 for both). Remote settlements and Indigenous set-
tlements are less likely to have solar connection clarity and less likely
to have clear and independent complaints processes (models 3 and 5).
Remote settlements are 38% less likely (vs urban and regional) to have
solar connection clarity and 14% less likely to have clear complaints
processes (margins contrast, p = 0.000 for both). Indigenous settle-
ments are 48% less likely to have solar connection clarity and 10% less
likely to have complaints process clarity, compared with settlements
that are not majority Indigenous (margins contrast, p = 0.000 for both).
For three of our dependent variables, we find that being in a
non-remote settlement perfectly predicts success (models 1, 2 and 4).
That is, all settlements that are urban or regional have legally enforce-
able protections for all customers regarding life support, guaranteed
service levels and disconnection reporting. For these indicators, we
examine variation only within remote settlements (n = 610). Those
remote settlements where over 80% of the population is Indigenous
are less likely to have life-support protections, guaranteed service
levels and disconnection reporting requirements for all customers
(models 1, 2 and 4). Compared with remote settlements that are not
Indigenous, Indigenous settlements are 61% less likely to have life sup-
port protections, 46% less likely to have guaranteed service levels and
63% less likely to have disconnection reporting requirements (margins
contrast, p = 0.000 for all).
Higher IRSAD scores (indicating a relative lack of disadvantage and
greater advantage in general) are correlated with higher likelihood of
having life-support protections, guaranteed service levels, disconnec-
tion reporting requirements and clear complaints processes. Higher
IRSAD scores are likewise correlated with lower likelihood of being
underserved overall. Higher population is not associated with any
differences in legal protections.
The models in Table 1 interpret settlements as having life-support
protections in cases where life-support registration and prepay use
are mutually exclusive (Fig. 3a and associated text provide additional
detail). However, in practice, prepayment customers in remote areas
may still face practical challenges associated with registering for life
support and associated payment plan changes. We include an addi-
tional analysis in Supplementary Table 3 that treats life support and
prepayment incompatibility as being consistent with an absence of
protection. As with our main analyses in Table 1, Indigenous and remote
settlements are less likely to have life-support protections and more
likely to lack protections across multiple dimensions.
Settlements with fewer protections for electricity
access
Life-support customers are by definition those who face increased
risks of morbidity and mortality when disconnected from electricity.
Definitions of life support vary by jurisdiction but uniformly describe
life-support requirements in terms of reliance on particular equipment
(Supplementary Table 4). For 161 remote settlements where there are
no consumer-focused regulatory frameworks, life-support protec-
tions are unavailable for both payment types, with potentially severe
implications for residents (Fig. 3a). In 412 settlements prepayment is
incompatible with life support. Three scenarios were identified where
life-support customers could use prepayment (Supplementary Table 5

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
95
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
and notes), but only one of these scenarios (for 8 SA settlements) pro-
vides legal protections from disconnection. Mutual incompatibility of
prepayment and life support may not provide consumer protection:
during consultations, one community organization described that
consumers could face practical difficulties in switching payment type.
Document review indicates that responsibility to register for life sup-
port and navigate various procedures is allocated to the individual level,
with a potentially prohibitive paperwork burden to access protections.
As of July 2022, only the state of Victoria provides protections
from disconnection for those experiencing family violence (Fig. 3b
and Supplementary Table 6). ‘Family violence’ is expansively defined
in many Australian jurisdictions to include all aspects of behaviour that
seek to threaten, coerce, abuse or control a family member such that
that person feels fear for theirs, or another family member’s, safety or
well-being. As an essential service, electricity access can be exploited as
a form of control42. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women often
face severe and discriminatory systemic barriers to addressing family
violence43. There is a pervasive fear of child removal, linked with the
colonial policy history of enforced Indigenous child removals (Stolen
Generation) and with disproportionately high rates of Aboriginal
children currently in out-of-home care43. Protections that took effect
in Victoria from 1 January 2020 require electricity retailers to have a
family violence policy and outline minimum standards of assistance
for these vulnerable customers, including the acknowledgement of
family violence as a potential cause of payment difficulty.
In Australia, very few settlements receive any protections from
disconnection upon non-payment during very hot or very cold tem-
peratures (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Table 7). Disconnection from
electricity during very hot or very cold temperatures can have impacts
on mortality rates; when services are disrupted, exposure to tem-
perature extremes can amplify risks associated with underlying health
issues with profound adverse outcomes19,28,44–46. Some member states
within the European Union and United States provide exemptions from
disconnection during extreme temperatures, with threshold cut-offs
varying by jurisdiction28,47,48. Although the NECF in Australia creates a
framework to secure protections from disconnection during extreme
weather, only SA has implemented the state-level regulations necessary
to activate these protections, and as of July 2022 this only protected
on-grid customers who post-pay.
Many remote settlements do not have guaranteed service levels
(Fig. 3d and Supplementary Table 8). guaranteed service levels seek
to compensate eligible customers for unplanned supply interrup-
tions. Community organizations reported slow utility service response
times following damage to electricity infrastructure in remote loca-
tions, which could compound the coercive potential of electricity
supply disruption. The types of interruption covered by guaranteed
0 of 5 regulations
1 of 5 regulations
2 of 5 regulations
3 of 5 regulations
4 of 5 regulations
5 of 5 regulations
150
140
130
120
40
20
Latitude (° S)
30
10
150
140
130
Longitude (° E)
Longitude (° E)
120
Fig. 2 | Absence of legal protections across multiple dimensions. Considering
whether a settlement is underserved across multiple dimensions, compiling
(1) life-support protections, (2) guaranteed service level, (3) solar connection
process stated in contract, (4) disconnection reporting requirements and
(5) complaints process clarity and independence (n = 3,047 settlements).
Remote areas shown in grey.

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
96
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
service levels commonly do not include supply interruptions caused
by third-party interference.
Retailer definitions of hardship universally exclude prepayment
customers (Supplementary Table 9), as hardship is defined in relation
to either a consumers’ inability to pay bills (which prepay customers do
not receive) or to a specified level of accrued debt (which for prepay is
limited to small amounts of friendly credit). This exclusion by defini-
tion of prepay customers from hardship reporting and supports puts
these customers at a disadvantage relative to other payment types and
increases risk of non-recognition.
Settlements with constraints to installing
rooftop solar
Internationally households wanting to install solar often face barriers
to navigating the process for grid connection49–51. Stakeholder engage-
ments and prior Australian research52 identify these connection pro-
cesses as an impediment facing remote and Indigenous communities
attempting to take part in energy transition. In Australia, distribu-
tors own the poles and wires and are responsible for the connection
process. Although some states and territories have overarching legal
requirements for distributors to connect residential solar, these docu-
ments leave distributors with a high-to-moderate degree of discretion
in permitting individual residential connections to networks (Fig. 4a
and Supplementary Table 10). In full discretion cases, there is no rel-
evant regulation that specifies conditions under which distributed
solar should be connected; in moderate discretion cases, a distributor
is required to have a ‘model standing offer’ or equivalent that estab-
lishes the conditions under which solar would be connected. Many
smaller remote settlements are subject to network constraints and
newly offered capacity allocations are oversubscribed in short order.
Some progress is being made in this regard, for example, in WA where
the distributed network service provider Horizon Power has commit-
ted to a policy of no solar refusals by 202553.
Because distributors always retain some discretion, to understand
customer ability to enforce a right to connect solar, we review standard
contracts that customers would navigate in the process of connecting
residential solar to a distributor network (such as model standing
offers; Fig. 4b and Supplementary Table 11). The conditions under
which prepay customer applications to connect would be approved
are only clear in the contracts for two settlements. This accords with
recent research showing prepay customers are either precluded or face
greater barriers when seeking to install rooftop solar52. When distribu-
tor standard contracts do not set out the conditions under which con-
sumers could reasonably expect their residential solar connection to be
approved, this presents a barrier to solar installation49–51. Settlements
within the NEM and major networks of the NT have clear contractual
processes for post-paying customers, but prepay customers may face
challenges installing residential solar due to lack of clarity. Outside the
NEM, both prepay and post-pay consumers have limited recourse to
pursue residential solar grid connection in the event of a distributor
refusal—due to the lack of a legal basis to connect, lack of standard con-
tracts with clear parameters for connection or a combination of both.
Settlements that face weaker reporting
requirements
Substantial geographic variation is evident in disconnection reporting
requirements (Fig. 5a and Supplementary Table 12). Although discon-
nection reporting in itself does not offer a protection, the lack of report-
ing precludes efforts to secure improved protections for groups facing
high disconnection rates, raising the risk of non- or mis-recognition.
The lack of consistent disconnection reporting for prepayment custom-
ers in Queensland (Supplementary Note 5), NT, WA and SA obscures
the true level of energy insecurity in these regions26,54.
Complaints processes are an essential procedure for correcting
unique errors (via the utility) and systemic inequities (via independent
processes)7,55. Clarity and independence of process ensure consumers
may seek redress in the case of failure to provide protections that are
otherwise legally required. Numerous remote communities in the NT,
WA and SA lack these complaints process protections, while they are
provided to Queensland card-operated communities (Fig. 5b, Sup-
plementary Table 13 and Supplementary Note 5). Those remote com-
munities that do lack clear and independent complaints processes are
the same communities that lack other regulatory protections across
the categories examined. These communities, particularly Indigenous
communities, face challenges in seeking remedy through complaints
processes, such as lack of materials in their own languages and limited
access to internet18,56. Procedural injustices occur when certain groups
have systematically lesser access to the procedures of institutional
governance and decision-making processes that are relevant to their
needs, resulting in marginalization and discriminatory outcomes55,57,58.
Discussion
In investigating the socio-spatial diversity of electricity retail regulation
across 2,996 Australian settlements nationwide, our findings reflect
a confounding albeit commonplace reality: remote communities in
Australia are less likely to have comprehensive regulatory protections
for access to electricity and the services it provides. In a disconcerting
measure of indifference, remote settlements are 18% more likely to be
underserved across multiple metrics. Analyses further highlight the
possibility that Indigenous peoples, whose lands are among the most
Table 1 | Multiple logistic regression examining likelihood of remote and Indigenous settlements having protections across
five indicators and likelihood of being underserved by protections in multiple dimensions
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Has life-support
protections
Has guaranteed
service level
Has solar
connection
clarity
Has disconnection
reporting requirements
Has complaints
process clarity and
independence
Is underserved on
multiple metrics
Remote
(all remote)
(all remote)
−1.82*** (0.11)
[0.000]
(all remote)
−4.11*** (0.47) [0.000]
4.53*** (0.47)
[0.000]
Over 80% Indigenous
−3.25*** (0.36)
[0.000]
−2.45*** (0.33)
[0.000]
−2.31*** (0.30)
[0.000]
−3.23*** (0.36) [0.000]
−2.31*** (0.32) [0.000]
2.98*** (0.34)
[0.000]
Population (1,000s)
0.01 (0.09)
[0.883]
−0.09 (0.13)
[0.459]
−0.00 (0.00)
[0.815]
0.02 (0.08) [0.803]
−0.00 (0.00) [0.664]
0.00 (0.00) [0.649]
IRSAD
0.42** (0.15)
[0.005]
0.43*** (0.13)
[0.001]
−0.00 (0.07)
[0.949]
0.48** (0.15) [0.002]
0.41** (0.13) [0.001]
−0.39** (0.14)
[0.004]
Pseudo R2
0.48
0.36
0.19
0.48
0.59
0.66
n
610
610
2,996
610
2,996
2,996
Standard errors in parentheses. +p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Precise two-tailed p values in square brackets. Adjustments were not made for multiple comparisons.

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
97
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
important contributors to the transition to renewable energy3,59, are
likely to be underserved by regulations that would secure their own
energy needs. Our analyses find that settlements with over 80% Indig-
enous share of population are 15% more likely to be underserved across
multiple metrics compared with their non-Indigenous neighbours.
Regulatory review indicates that an estimated 5 million Australians
(approximately one in five) are living in settlements where not all cus-
tomers are guaranteed protections for life support, disconnection
reporting, solar connection clarity, guaranteed service levels and
independent complaints processes.
These findings contribute to the international debate on just tran-
sition and energy justice, and the concern that transitioning energy sys-
tems will perpetuate existing winners and losers3. The concept of just
transition brings together aligned notions of environmental justice,
climate justice and energy justice to reflect an overarching societal goal
that leaves no-one behind in the process of systemic change required
to respond to the climate crisis1,2. Though electricity regulations have
long been viewed as technical, in practice they are a social policy that
can have far-reaching impacts27. We find that many remote communi-
ties and Indigenous communities are entering energy transition from
Neither prepay nor post-pay customers are protected
No protection for prepay customers, post-pay is protected
Prepay prohibited, post-pay protected
Both prepay and post-pay customers are protected
Post-pay is protected, whereas prepay and life support are mutually incompatible
a
b
c
d
150
150
140
140
130
130
Longitude (° E)
Longitude (° E)
120
120
110
160
10
20
Latitude (° S)
Latitude (° S)
30
40
150
150
140
140
130
130
120
120
110
160
10
20
30
40
150
150
140
140
130
130
120
120
110
160
10
20
30
40
150
150
140
140
130
Longitude (° E)
Longitude (° E)
130
120
120
110
160
10
20
30
40
Fig. 3 | Mapping legal protections related to disconnection and service levels. a–c, Mapping legal protections that establish additional protections from
disconnection for life-support customers (a), those experiencing family violence (b) and during extremely hot or cold temperatures (c). d, Mapping where guaranteed
service levels apply (n = 3,047 settlements).

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
98
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
an uneven footing, lacking commensurate ability to install their own
rooftop solar, lacking ubiquitous disconnection reporting that makes
energy insecurity visible, lacking procedures to redress poor service
levels and in some cases even lacking clear protections for life-support
customers. This may lead to entrenched injustices during energy transi-
tion60. These communities currently underserved by electricity regula-
tions are experiencing multiple dimensions of energy injustice and as
such are not being engaged in a just transition1,2.
Indigenous lands hold many of the minerals critical for energy
transition59 and host rich renewable energy resources61, yet many of
these communities are currently underserved by electricity systems,
face challenges installing solar52 and face frequent disconnections19. In
Australia, lands critical to the nation’s aspirations for becoming a green
energy superpower9 are among the worst served by today’s electricity
retail regulations. This echoes the growing international literature on
non-recognition of consumer needs in energy peripheries4,5,31. Distrib-
uted energy resources have the potential to democratize control of
energy systems and restore decision-making power to communities27,
yet our mapping shows that remote communities are underserved both
by protections for centralized energy systems and by processes that
would support household installation of distributed renewable energy.
Our findings reflect that communities at the periphery geographi-
cally and politically often face unique challenges of energy vulnerabil-
ity4,5,31. Peripheral places often hold less economic, social and political
power5 and may be more likely to have their needs go unrecognized or
even ignored4. Remote communities in Australia are so designated due
to distances that people have to travel to receive basic services62, and
although remote places are in no way uniformly disadvantaged, many
of Australia’s most socio-economically disadvantaged communities are
in remote locations63. The division of jurisdictional accountabilities
between the Commonwealth and the states and territories for the
funding of essential services in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities represents a piecemeal approach19 by settler policy-
makers that has too often resulted in services that do not adequately
reflect the needs of communities themselves. There is an urgent need
for regulatory frameworks to be developed that better support the
rights of Australia’s First Peoples to participate in decision-making
about present and future energy systems.
Many underserved communities are on lands that will experience
substantial temperature increases as a result of climate change64,65,
requiring an ever greater reliance on electricity for cooling to maintain
thermal safety and comfort66–68. The lack of regulatory protections
in remote communities intersects with a wide array of energy justice
applications, including energy poverty (welfare), climate change (fair-
ness and responsibility), energy resources (prosperity) and energy and
due process (procedural justice)55. Current Australian protections from
disconnection during extreme weather lag those protections granted
in many parts of the United States and the European Union28,47, with
most Australian jurisdictions lacking codified protections from discon-
nection during extreme heat or cold weather events. There is a need to
improve protections for all Australians, but in doing so there is a need
to ensure that protections do not reproduce existing spatial patterns of
underserving remote and Indigenous communities; these communities
are likely to experience increased extremes in a changing climate64,65.
Having mapped the national scale of regulatory difference for elec-
tricity retail protections, the next analytical step will be to determine
the impacts of these disparities on outcomes for human communities,
such as health and well-being. The absence of disconnection reporting
for prepay customers has wide-reaching consequences. Australia’s
Closing the Gap agreement is intended to improve life outcomes for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people69. Yet, the Commonwealth
agency charged with monitoring progress on this area has been unable
to report against essential services (electricity) progress due to lack
of data70. Reporting of self-disconnections should be mandatory in
150
150
140
140
130
Longitude (° E)
Longitude (° E)
130
 Longitude (° E)
 Longitude (° E)
120
120
110
160
10
20
Latitude (° S)
30
40
No for prepay and post-pay
No for prepay, yes for post-pay
Yes for post-pay, prepay prohibited
Yes for both prepay and post-pay
High distributor discretion
Moderate distributor discretion
a
b
150
150
140
140
130
130
120
120
110
160
10
20
30
40
Fig. 4 | Mapping legal protections related to rooftop solar connection. a,b, Mapping ability to connect residential solar established by act or regulation (level
of distributor discretion) (a) and whether the contract with the distributor lays out clear conditions under which the consumer could reasonably expect to have a
connection request for solar approved (b) (n = 3,047 settlements).

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
99
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
all jurisdictions. Further, we recommend that Australian regulatory
bodies require the number of registered life-support customers by
payment type in each jurisdiction to be publicly reported; reporting
could highlight areas of under-registration, such as in areas where
prepay and life-support protections are mutually exclusive. Australia’s
regulatory agencies charged with governing electricity retail protec-
tions could take this role. Future work could consider the Australian
governance structures that gave rise to the disparities in regulatory
protections, including use of prepayment, that we see clearly visual-
ized in our mapping.
In mapping the spatial arrangement of regulatory disparity, it is
essential to acknowledge the legacy of cartography as an instrument
of governmentality in delineating those territories stolen from Aus-
tralia’s First Peoples, whose lands they never surrendered. Even the
most well-intentioned map-making risks obscuring or misrepresent-
ing procedural, distributive and recognition injustices for specific
communities and/or individuals. Moreover, regulation undergoes
frequent iteration, and there were numerous changes proposed, in
draft form or in the process of introduction during this review. We
seek to dispel here any perception of a deficit narrative of Australian
rurality and acknowledge the efforts of the many individuals, com-
munities, advocates, utilities and policymakers engaged in finding
local solutions and alternatives to the challenges identified here.
Methodologically, we recognize that identifying underserved com-
munities with a simple count of regulations provided does not capture
the potential for regulations to have differing extents and magni-
tudes of impact. We opted for a simple count as the most transparent
indicator of locations facing disadvantage in multiple areas, while
mindful that this may not fully capture regulation in each practical
application. Finally, we note that the situation in Australia is unique
to this country, its history, demography and geography. Nonetheless,
we hope that by identifying patterns of underserved locations and
demographics shown in this work, we create the impetus for future
work interrogating local situations globally, so as to identify dispari-
ties in current electricity regulations that may reproduce inequalities
in transitioning systems.
Methods
Ethics and inclusion statement
Our research methodology is informed by the principles underpin-
ning ethical Australian Indigenous research outlined in the Australian
Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Code of Ethics
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research71, and our research
team is committed to the principles of Indigenous self-determination,
Indigenous leadership, impact and value, sustainability and account-
ability. V.N.D. is senior Aboriginal researcher at Tangentyere Research
Hub in Mparntwe (Alice Springs) and a visiting Indigenous fellow at the
Australian National University (ANU) Centre for Aboriginal Economic
Policy Research. M.K. is senior policy manager at Tangentyere Research
Hub and a visiting fellow at the ANU’s Centre for Aboriginal Economic
Policy Research.
This research both springs from and builds upon efforts by our col-
laborators at the Tangentyere Research Hub, starting in 2019. Research
approach and methods were determined in collaboration with these
local partners. Roles and responsibilities were agreed among col-
laborators early in the research, having developed out of our previous
collaborations on a related topic19 and included plans to centre the
perspectives of Indigenous researchers. Capacity building included
exchanges between researchers in Central Australia and the NT, such
as time spent by B.R. in Alice Springs and time spent by V.N.D and M.K.
in Canberra. Local capacity constraints may have circumscribed how
comprehensive the analysis could be; however, in no other ways would
this research have been prohibited.
This research occurs within Australia, and it was conducted with
ethics approval from the ANU’s Research Ethics Committee approval
2022/443. Despite the desktop, statistical, nature of the research, it was
150
150
140
140
130
 Longitude (° E)
130
Longitude (° E)
Longitude (° E)
Longitude (° E)
120
120
110
160
10
20
Latitude (° S)
30
40
150
150
140
140
130
130
120
120
110
160
10
20
30
40
Not required for either prepay or post-pay customers
Required for post-pay customers but not prepay
Required for prepay customers but not post-pay
Required for post-pay customers, and prepay is prohibited
Required for both post-pay and prepay customers
a
b
Fig. 5 | Mapping legal requirements for reporting and complaints processes. a,b, Mapping legal requirements to report disconnections (a) and have clear and
independent complaints processes (b) (n = 3,047 settlements).

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
100
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
conducted in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research
Council’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.
Geography identification
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Urban Centres and Localities
(UCL) dataset identifies all settlements in Australia with populations
of 200 or more people. To capture all possible settlements, including
small remote locations, we developed a custom settlement classifica-
tion based on the ABS smallest geographical units, Mesh Blocks (MBs),
which cover the whole country and generally contain 30 to 60 dwell-
ings. This process identified a total of 3,089 settlements across all of
Australia, compared with the 1,809 settlements captured in the 2021
UCL dataset. We identified settlements using several steps:
	 (1)	 Estimated residential populations (ERPs) at 30 June 2021 are
imputed for every MB for the total population and the Indigenous
population by progressively downscaling state/territory ERPs us-
ing Census counts tabulated at the SA4, SA3, SA2, SA1 and MB level.
	 (2)	All MBs within a UCL are allocated to that UCL.
	 (3)	All remaining MBs classified by the ABS as being primarily used
for residential purposes are grouped into clusters based on
spatial contiguity.
	 (4)	Clusters of MBs that are contiguous with a UCL are allocated to
that UCL.
	 (5)	Unallocated MB clusters are classified based on OpenStreetMap
data. Specifically, a place name is allocated to a cluster of MBs
if the MBs intersect an OpenStreetMap node with a ‘place’ tag
containing any of the values ‘city’, ‘town’, ‘village’, ‘hamlet’ or
‘isolated_dwelling’ and with a ‘name’ tag.
	 (6)	Unallocated MB clusters with a total ERP of 20 or less are
excluded.
	 (7)	Unallocated MB clusters that are within 10 km of a UCL are al-
located to that UCL.
	 (8)	Unallocated MB clusters that are within 10 km of a named Open-
StreetMap place node (as above) are allocated to that place.
	 (9)	Outliers (for example, prisons, a fracking field) were manually
removed.
	(10)	Manual checking against satellite imagery and gazetteers was
undertaken, especially of those MBs allocated to a settlement
on the basis of distance to the closest named place. Numerous
place nodes were added manually in OpenStreetMap based on a
visual inspection of interim results.
This method treats Indigenous communities and small non-
Indigenous settlements identically. We caution that this method does
not capture all populated small settlements, such as remote Indigenous
homelands that are seasonally populated living areas on Traditional
Lands. Some smaller communities are not identified under our geo-
graphic methods as discrete settlements, instead being merged with
larger nearby settlements. This means that some small settlements
do not appear by name, despite having distinct regulatory regimes
identifiable in other documentation. For example, Acacia Larrakia and
Kybrook Farm in the NT are not discretely identified, despite having a
distinct set of regulation. We note these agglomerated settlements as
being a limitation of our method. Given these limitations, our analyses
probably under-represent the extent to which smaller communities are
underserved by current regulation.
Remoteness and socio-demographic variables
For each identified settlement, we calculated the latitude and longitude
of its centroid. The ABS remoteness classifications were then added
via spatial join of Remoteness Area 2021 ABS shapefile to geographic
centre point of each settlement. These classifications are Major Cities,
Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. We identi-
fied that in rare cases, the shape of a settlement caused the centre
point to fall into a neighbouring remoteness category. Therefore, we
cross-checked all settlements within 1 km of the nearest remoteness
boundary against their remoteness category in the ABS’ ArcGIS Online
Map Viewer with the 2021 remoteness boundaries as a layer.
We calculated socio-demographic variables for each settle-
ment based on SA1-level Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)
indicators from ABS 2021: IRSAD, Index of Relative Socio-economic
Disadvantage, Index of Economic Resources and Index of Educa-
tion and Occupation. Each MB was assigned the SEIFA score of its
enclosing SA1. Settlement-wide SEIFA scores were then calculated
as a population-weighted average of its constituent MBs. Statistical
analyses use IRSAD as a control variable. This ABS indicator summa-
rizes information about the economic and social conditions of people
and households within an area, including both relative advantage and
disadvantage indicators. This is used in place of individual indicators
such as income, employment and housing tenure due to the likelihood
that those variables are highly collinear.
Remoteness is coded dichotomously such as that Remote or Very
Remote settlements are coded 1 whereas Major Cities, Inner Regional
and Outer Regional are coded 0. Indigenous share of the population is
coded as a dichotomous variable where 1 denotes a settlement where
over 80% of the population is Indigenous, and 0 denotes otherwise. This
threshold was chosen to capture discrete Indigenous communities, that
is, those predominantly Indigenous communities that are established on
Aboriginal land and have historically had housing or infrastructure that
is managed on a community basis. Pre-coarsening, each settlement’s
total ERP, Indigenous ERP and percentage of a settlement that identify
as Indigenous were calculated by summing the ERPs associated with
each MB that comprise the settlement (step 1 in geography identifica-
tion). These settlements formed the basis of our subsequent regulatory
coding and analysis and were manually matched by settlement name.
National review of retail legal protections
Data were collected during October 2021 to February 2023 and
included review of 1,159 regulatory documents (284 of which are
legal documents used for protection coding). Our review focused on
consumer-facing electricity retail regulation (such as the NERL) as
opposed to energy regulation more broadly (such as the NEL). Where
categories of interest for electricity services fell within distributor remit
(that is, solar connections), we reviewed the appropriate documents
associated with electricity regulation (such as the National Electricity
Rules made under the NEL). We mapped 12 categories, four of which
were combined into a single indicator (‘minimum complaints protec-
tions’). Data collection was completed during October 2021 to February
2023 and included review of 284 legal documents to identify protec-
tions in each settlement. Regulatory environment at the settlement
level was cross-checked with review of over 800 further documents
to ensure no exceptions were overlooked. Settlements were coded
based on their legal protections up to and including 1 July 2022. Regula-
tion undergoes frequent iteration, and there were numerous pending
changes proposed in draft form or in the process of introduction during
our review (notably in remote WA, though this is unlikely to change
community status in the short term; Supplementary Note 6).
Legal protections were mapped for 3,047 of the geographically
identified settlements. We excluded 42 settlements from mapping
despite meeting geography criteria (Supplementary Table 14). Our
review began by identifying those legal documents applicable to each
settlement nationally following a two-step process, with some itera-
tion. We first identified the acts, regulations, rules, determinations
and orders governing electricity supply to residential customers in
Australia, through top-down document identification of statutory
frameworks governing the electricity industry in each state and
territory—including legislation implementing the NERL and National
Energy Retail Rules within Australia’s NEM. We then reviewed core acts
and associated regulations to identify which conditions or areas were
exempted, excluded or not explicitly included in relevant coverages.

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
101
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
Second, we identified any licences, exemptions, codes and guidelines
that form part of the regulatory frameworks; in many cases these docu-
ments identify settlements by name that subsequently facilitated cod-
ing at settlement level. If the regulatory context for a settlement could
not be identified through these steps, document searches continued
with expansion to other publicly available documents, including gov-
ernment and retailer/distributor websites and annual reports; however,
these documents were used only to provide context on regulatory
environment because they do not have legally enforceable status to
provide consumer protections.
Statutory and contractual interpretation
The process of coding protections received in each settlement involved
interpretation of legislation and contracts, where legal principles
necessarily apply, thus we followed norms of legal interpretation in our
document analysis and coding. In all cases, this involved the applica-
tion of basic principles of statutory and contractual interpretation.
Legislative documents, such as the NERL, provide clear statu-
tory protections and are legally enforceable, hence these documents
formed the basis of our coding. Our coding questions (as specified in
respective Supplementary Tables) generally followed the format of ‘Are
protections required by act, regulation, code or licence condition?’,
with all coded responses referring to specific provisions of legislative
instruments (Data Availability statement to download the full dataset).
For legislation, analysis proceeded by examination of ‘the words, their
context and the purpose of the legislation’ without reliance on extrinsic
materials72. In some cases, a relevant protection arose directly from
one legislative provision; in other cases, it involved the combination
of primary legislative provisions and associated subordinate legisla-
tion (for example, extreme weather protections present in the NERL
but which are only enlivened by local subordinate legislation in SA).
Legislative instruments regarding consumer right to connect
residential solar give discretion to distributors (Supplementary Table
10); hence we consulted distributor contracts that customers must
navigate when installing solar to determine consumer rights (Sup-
plementary Table 11). For contracts, analysis concerned the meaning
of words in written contracts construed ‘according to the strict, plain,
common meaning of the words themselves’73. In some cases, external
documents were referred to directly in the contract and were therefore
‘read in’ and naturally included in analysis, for example, utility hardship
policies (Supplementary Table 4). When reviewing standard retailer
contracts, we identified the exclusive retailer or retailer of last resort
(the local area retailer obligated to provide households with an elec-
tricity contract where another retailer fails) and coded based on their
regulatory context to represent a putative case. We did not consider
‘market retail contracts’ (under which retailers can offer special plans
and bundles) when coding legal protections.
Alongside legal documents (such as legislation and customer
contracts), our regulatory review included quasi-regulatory docu-
ments (such as utility policies and utility web pages). Quasi-regulatory
documents were incorporated only where necessary to give context
to legal documents, such as to identify arrangements in some off-grid
settlements that lack legislative transparency, before proceeding to
exclusion of that settlement (Supplementary Table 14) or where they
were referred to in legal documents, such as life-support procedures
or hardship policies. Quasi-regulatory documents were primarily used
as a cross-check to ensure that no relevant legal documents had been
overlooked in searching. Where further disambiguation was required,
governing bodies were contacted directly for clarity (via email or tel-
ephone). A settlement was never coded as receiving protection only on
the basis of a quasi-regulatory document, but in some cases these docu-
ments corroborated a lack of definitive protections conferred by legal
documents. In cases where a quasi-regulatory document suggested a
protection that could not be clearly confirmed in a legal document,
that settlement was coded as lacking protections.
Engagement with community and regulatory organizations
Indicators were developed iteratively during three rounds of engage-
ment and consultations with 32 intermediaries from energy, hous-
ing, health and social service organizations operating at national and
sub-national levels representing a diversity of constituents and loca-
tions. We engaged with 12 organizations one to three times over the
course of the project in semi-structured 1-h long discussions. Stake-
holders included: the Northern Territory Council of Social Service,
the South Australian Council of Social Service, the Western Australian
Council of Social Service, Original Power, the First Nations Clean Energy
Network, Tangentyere Council Research Hub, Indigenous Consumer
Assistance Network, Weipa Community Care, Energy Consumers Aus-
tralia (ECA), Australian Energy Regulator and one other who requested
anonymity. Before engagement commenced, these organizations all
received a project information sheet and were read a consent form
script; options were offered for anonymity, attribution at organiza-
tional level and attribution at individual level.
Our initial list of indicators included life-support protections,
hardship policies, protections from disconnection, redress of elec-
tricity service or access issues and access to solar; this was based on
energy justice concerns identified in prior literature. Review of regu-
latory documents prompted re-evaluation of some of these (hard-
ship policies were not sufficiently precise to map), and refinement of
others (the only protections related to disconnection that could be
identified were related to life support, extreme weather and reporting
of disconnections; redress of electricity service or access issues was
refined to complaints process and independence based on language
used in regulatory documents). Stakeholder consultation reinforced
the necessity of including access to solar, and regulatory review trian-
gulated the need to focus on distributor contracts to establish this.
In conversations with stakeholders, we also identified the need to
include guaranteed service levels and family violence policies in review.
Excepting these two additions, stakeholders agreed that our initial
list and refinements covered the key areas of interest. Stakeholders
also repeatedly reinforced the importance of an indicator to visualize
whether multiple protections were absent.
Due to this primary intent of stakeholder engagement to ensure
completeness of indicator selection rather than to comprise a form
of data collection or a formal mode of analysis, we took detailed min-
utes of each stakeholder meeting but did not record or transcribe
our discussions with stakeholders. Where key insights emerged from
these engagements, any references included in the manuscript were
double-checked with individuals for accuracy.
Data preparation for mapping and statistical analysis
The summarized legislative situation for each settlement was recorded
by a team member with legal expertise. These summaries are reported
in Supplementary Tables 1, 5–8 and 10–13. Detailed categories were
then simplified based on agreement between at least two our team
members, with summaries recorded in these Supplementary Tables.
Data underwent two steps of simplification. First, we created the
categories used in individual maps (Figs. 3–5), that is, neither post-pay
nor prepay customers are protected (0); no protection for prepay cus-
tomers, post-pay protected (1); prepayment is prohibited, post-pay pro-
tected (2) and both post-pay and prepay customers are protected (3).
Some maps required additional categories, that is, prepayment and
life support are mutually incompatible (4) and procedure required for
prepay but not post-pay customers (1.5).
This was then further aggregated for statistical analyses in Table 1
models 1–5, simplified to a dichotomous yes (1) or no (0), using the
principle of minimum protection available to all customers in the settle-
ment. We aggregated the map codes described in Supplementary Tables
5, 8 and 11–13. Settlements are coded 1 where all customers, that is, both
post-pay and prepay, receive protection (map codes 2 and 3; life-support
code 4 is coded 1 for Table 1 and 0 for Supplementary Table 3).

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
102
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
We coded settlements 0 where not all customers receive protection
(map codes 0, 1 or 1.5). This approach extended to locations where
prepay is in theory permitted but not currently in use. In such cases if
the protection was not clearly available to (hypothetical future) prepay
customers but was available to post-pay customers, we coded 0.
We examined whether the use of prepayment meters is expressly
prohibited (prepayment prohibited) by legislation, code or licence
conditions. Supplementary Table 1 describes simplified coding. In
cases where prepay or equivalent meters were permitted but not cur-
rently operational, we coded 0 (not prohibited).
We examined whether protections from disconnection for life-
support customers are required by legislation, code or licence condi-
tion in the event of non-payment. Supplementary Table 5 details the
simplified codes and map codes assigned to each category. Life-support
coding includes a ‘91’ simplified code for prepay customers where life
support and prepay are mutually exclusive. For mapping, this 91 code
became either a 4 (if prepay and life support were mutually exclusive
but post-pay is protected) or a 0 (if prepay and life support were mutu-
ally exclusive and post-pay is not protected). In rare cases, contracts
afforded a legal protection even in the absence of legislative require-
ments. This is the case, for example, for remote communities served
by Jacana in the NT, where Jacana offers contractual protections for
life-support customers equivalent to those for communities con-
nected to major grid networks. Our mapping of life-support protec-
tions focuses on those in legislation, code or licence condition, but
we note that in certain cases customer protections may also arise at a
(more changeable) contractual level.
We assessed whether there is a legal requirement for the retailer
to have a family violence policy pursuant to act, regulation or code
and investigated this separately for prepay and post-pay customers.
Supplementary Table 6 details the simplified coding and the map code
assigned to each category.
We examined whether the retailer is legally required to provide
protections from disconnection for non-payment during an extreme
weather event pursuant to legislation, code or licence condition. Sup-
plementary Table 7 details the simplified codes and map codes assigned
to each category.
We examine whether act, code or licence condition establishes
a guaranteed service level scheme, which the distributor is legally
required to adhere to, covering unplanned interruptions in the cus-
tomer’s electricity supply. Supplementary Table 8 details the simplified
codes and map codes assigned to each category.
Legislation may provide a right to connect solar, but this is always
at some degree of distributor discretion for technical and economic
considerations. There is no distinction in these regulatory documents
between prepay and post-pay customers. We examine the degree to
which relevant legislation specifies a standard set of conditions under
which the distributor is required to connect residential solar (Supple-
mentary Table 10; this variable represents an exception to the coding
scheme). We interpret the absence of a legislative right to connect or
broad qualifying parameters (for example, which apply in isolated
networks in Queensland) as ‘high distributor discretion’. In contrast,
‘moderate discretion’ arises where there is a requirement for a model
standing offer (for example, National Electricity Rules, Chapter 5A
for NEM interconnected locations) or there are other clear qualifying
parameters (for example, off-grid Tasmania).
Because legislation always allows distributor discretion in enact-
ing customer right to connect solar, we review the connection terms
in the model standing offer contracts (or equivalent) that a customer
would navigate when attempting to establish a solar connection with
the distributor (that is, the clarity in connecting solar). These standard
contracts represent a point at which the distributor can legally refuse a
connection if the residential solar system does not meet their require-
ments (such as by falling outside conditions specified in the model
standing offer). Specifically, we consider whether these contracts
articulate those conditions under which a solar connection (through
the associated contract) could be applied for with a reasonable expec-
tation of success, such as system size, and inverter requirements and
export limits. Review assessed whether the contract (such as a model
standing offer) that a customer would refer to when connecting solar to
a distribution network had clear eligibility criteria laid out under which
the consumer could reasonably expect the distributor to approve a
connection request for solar. For example, Essential Energy’s licensed
distribution area in New South Wales has a model standing offer for
basic (post-pay) connection services, and the standing offer contains
the terms and conditions for solar connections—this provides clarity
and was coded as ‘1’. Supplementary Table 11 describes the simplified
coding and map coding for prepay and post-pay customers.
We examined whether act, regulation or code legally requires
the retailer to report total numbers of customer disconnections
for non-payment (disconnection reporting), coding separately for
post-pay and prepay customers. Supplementary Table 12 reports sim-
plified coding and map coding.
Four indicators were combined to understand minimum com-
plaints protections. We examined the complaints resolution process
and ombudsman process for both distributors and retailers to deter-
mine whether there is a requirement by act, regulation, code or licence
condition for the retailer and/or distributor to (1) have and publish
customer complaints/dispute resolution procedures and (2) be subject
to an independent investigation and resolution process in relation to
customer complaints/disputes. These protections were synonymous
in most, but not all, cases. Given the similarity and close relation of
these four indicators, we created a ‘minimum complaints process’
indicator for each settlement that was assigned the lowest value given
to any of these four component indicators. We consider both pre-
pay and post-pay protections, and Supplementary Table 13 describes
the simplified coding and map coding for categories of settlement.
Where procedures were not clearly required or where procedures
were required but publishing or making the procedures available to
customers was not, settlements were assigned a simplified code of 0.
In cases where dispute resolution required retailers’ participation only
if requested in writing by the regulator and cases with thresholds for
customer inclusion, we assigned a simplified code of 0 due to the high
barrier customers may face.
Most settlements (92%) have four or five of the legal protections
for life support, guaranteed service levels, solar connection, discon-
nection reporting and complaints process clarity and independence.
Figure 2 shows distribution of these differences. We create an indicator
for underserved (in multiple areas) that is coded 1 if settlements have
zero to three of these protections and 0 if settlements have four to five
of these protections.
Statistical analysis
Stata MP 17.0 is used for all statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is
limited to those variables for which we can identify differences between
post-pay and prepay customers and those variables where visible vari-
ation is found during geographic mapping. We thus exclude family vio-
lence, extreme weather and legislative degree of distributor discretion
in solar connection from statistical analysis. We examine life-support
protections, guaranteed service levels, solar connection clarity, discon-
nection reporting requirements, clarity and independence of com-
plaints process and whether a settlement is underserved on multiple
metrics. The dataset is largely the same as that used for mapping, with
a further 51 settlements excluded due to lack of key socio-demographic
data (IRSAD), for a final sample of n = 2,996 settlements.
Multiple logistic regression is used to assess the extent to which a
settlement being remote or Indigenous (where over 80% of the popula-
tion identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders) is associated
with greater likelihood of a settlement lacking each of the five tested pro-
tections and for the aggregate indicator. Stata estimates equation (1),

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
103
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
where p is the expected probability that the outcome is present (that
is, of having a regulatory protection for either life-support protec-
tions, guaranteed service level, solar connection clarity, disconnec-
tion reporting requirements, clarity and independence of complaints
process or the aggregated indicator for settlements underserved on
multiple metrics); X1 through X4 are distinct independent variables
(1, remote (dichotomous); 2, majority Indigenous (dichotomous);
3, population (continuous) and 4, IRSAD (continuous)); β1 through β4
are the regression coefficients associated with corresponding variables
and β0 is the intercept.
p =
exp(β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4)
1 + exp(β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4)
(1)
Testing the variance inflation factor (VIF) for multicollinearity in
regressions indicates VIF of 0 to 2 for each independent variable within
our dataset. By most rules of thumb, this is a low VIF—generally, VIF only
merits further investigation for variables over 10. Multicollinearity of
our independent variables is thus unlikely to impact interpretation of
our model results.
The logit command in Stata is used, providing logistic regression
coefficients (not odds ratios). The margins (contrast) post-estimation
command is then used to calculate the likelihood of groups lacking
protections in comparison to counterparts. Interpretation of these
likelihoods is that unconditional on other variables, settlements that
are remote (Indigenous) are x% more likely to have protections, com-
pared with settlements that are not remote (not Indigenous).
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Port-
folio Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
The data underlying this project are available via Figshare at
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24550585. We make available both
(1) the customized geographies and their associated socio-demographic
data and (2) the full underlying regulatory coding, preserving the origi-
nal richness before we applied our simplification criteria. The Stata do
file is included in the Figshare upload for ease of adapting the data for
further use. Source data are provided with this paper.
References
1.
Heffron, R. J. & McCauley, D. What is the ‘just transition’?
Geoforum 88, 74–77 (2018).
2.
Johansson, V. Just transition as an evolving concept in
international climate law. J. Environ. Law 35, 229–249
(2023).
3.
Carley, S. & Konisky, D. M. The justice and equity implications of
the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 5, 569–577 (2020).
4.
Bouzarovski, S. & Simcock, N. Spatializing energy justice. Energy
Policy 107, 640–648 (2017).
5.
O’Sullivan, K., Golubchikov, O. & Mehmood, A. Uneven energy
transitions: understanding continued energy peripheralization in
rural communities. Energy Policy 138, 111288 (2020).
6.
Zárate-Toledo, E., Patiño, R. & Fraga, J. Justice, social exclusion
and indigenous opposition: a case study of wind energy
development on the isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. Energy Res.
Social Sci. 54, 1–11 (2019).
7.
Walker, G. Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics
(Taylor & Francis Group, 2012).
8.
Thorburn, K., O’Neill, L., Hunt, J. & Riley, B. Renewable Energy
Projects on the Indigenous Estate: Identifying Risks and
Opportunities of Utility-Scale and Dispersed Models (Centre for
Aboriginal EconomicPolicy Research, Australian National Univ.,
2019); https://doi.org/10.25911/5dbaaa5c47c6a
9.
Burke, P. J. et al. Contributing to regional decarbonization:
Australia’s potential to supply zero-carbon commodities to the
Asia-Pacific. Energy 248, 123563 (2022).
10.	 Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report (IEA, IRENA, UNSD,
World Bank & WHO, 2022); https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/data/
files/download-documents/sdg7-report2022-full_report.pdf
11.
Davis, V. N., Lee, W. & Riley, B. Temperature extremes
exacerbate energy insecurity—Australia needs to better
support remote Indigenous communities to prepare
now. Springer Nature Sustainability Community http://
sustainabilitycommunity.springernature.com/posts/
temperature-extremes-exacerbate-energy-insecurity-australia -
needs-to-better-support-remote-indigenous-communities-to-
prepare-now-3d514d55-d403-4931-9200-44ccef116e4c
(2021).
12.	 Vera-Toscano, E. & Brown, H. Empirical evidence on the incidence
and persistence of energy poverty in Australia. Aust. Econ. Rev.
55, 515–529 (2022).
13.	 Liu, E. & Judd, B. Regional variations in the experiences of energy
poverty across Australia. Energy Build. 196, 293–298 (2019).
14.	 Hammerle, M. & Burke, P. J. Solar PV and energy poverty in
Australia’s residential sector. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 66,
822–841 (2022).
15.	 Grealy, L. Enforced commensuration and the bureaucratic
invention of household energy insecurity. Aust. Geogr. 54, 155–172
(2023).
16.	 Awaworyi Churchill, S. & Smyth, R. Energy poverty and health:
panel data evidence from Australia. Energy Econ. 97, 105219
(2021).
17.	 Stuck in the Heat: Lived Experiences of Public Housing Tenants
in the Kimberley (KCLS, 2022); https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/56aae0e04d088e4dfa68396f/t/6385f2f85f679917d0fb7b
2e/1669722882386/Stuck+in+the+Heat+2022.pdf
18.	 Dwyer, A. & Vernes, T. Power Usage in the Bidyadanga Community
and its Relationship to Community Health and Well-being (Univ. Notre
Dame Australia, 2016); https://www.notredame.edu.au/__data/
assets/pdf_file/0011/2333/Report-Power-Usage-Project.pdf
19.	 Longden, T. et al. Energy insecurity during temperature extremes
in remote Australia. Nat. Energy 7, 43–54 (2022).
20.	 Cost of Living Report: General Update Tracking Changes in
the Cost of Living, Particularly for Northern Territorians on Low
Incomes and Northern Territorians Experiencing Vulnerability and
Disadvantage (NTCOSS, 2022).
21.	 Helping People in Need During a Cost-of-Living Crisis: Findings
from the Australian Community Sector Survey—ACOSS (ACOSS,
2022); https://www.acoss.org.au/helping-people-in-need-
during-a- cost-of-living-crisis-findings-from-the-australian-
community-sector-survey/
22.	 Cassidy, C. ‘I’m alive, and that’s it’: rising cost of living puts
pressure on people already struggling. Guardian (27 April 2022).
23.	 Walker, G. & Day, R. Fuel poverty as injustice: integrating
distribution, recognition and procedure in the struggle for
affordable warmth. Energy Policy 49, 69–75 (2012).
24.	 Day, R., Walker, G. & Simcock, N. Conceptualising energy use and
energy poverty using a capabilities framework. Energy Policy 93,
255–264 (2016).
25.	 Walker, G. & Day, R. Necessary energy uses and a minimum
standard of living in the United Kingdom: energy justice or
escalating expectations? Energy Res. Social Sci. 18, 129–138
(2016).
26.	 Simcock, N., Frankowski, J. & Bouzarovski, S. Rendered invisible:
institutional misrecognition and the reproduction of energy
poverty. Geoforum 124, 1–9 (2021).
27.	 Chan, G. & Klass, A. B. Regulating for energy justice. N. Y. Univ.
Law Rev. 97, 1426–1506 (2022).

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
104
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
28.	 Flaherty, M., Carley, S. & Konisky, D. M. Electric utility
disconnection policy and vulnerable populations. Electr. J. 33,
106859 (2020).
29.	 Verclas, K. & Hsieh, E. From utility disconnection to universal
access. Electr. J. 31, 1–8 (2018).
30.	 Graff, M., Carley, S., Konisky, D. M. & Memmott, T. Opportunities
to advance research on energy insecurity. Nat. Energy 8, 550–553
(2023).
31.	 Golubchikov, O. & O’Sullivan, K. Energy periphery: uneven
development and the precarious geographies of low-carbon
transition. Energy Build 211, 109818 (2020).
32.	 Pilo’, F. Negotiating networked infrastructural inequalities:
governance, electricity access, and space in Rio de Janeiro.
Environ. Plan. C 39, 265–281 (2021).
33.	 Whittle, H. J. et al. Precarity and health: theorizing the intersection
of multiple material-need insecurities, stigma, and illness
among women in the United States. Social Sci. Med. 245,
112683 (2020).
34.	 Simcock, N. et al. Identifying double energy vulnerability: a
systematic and narrative review of groups at-risk of energy and
transport poverty in the global north. Energy Res. Social Sci. 82,
102351 (2021).
35.	 Chen, C., Greig, J., Nelson, H. & Li, F. When disadvantage collides:
the concentrated effects of energy insecurity and internet
burdens in the United States. Energy Res. Social Sci. 91, 102713
(2022).
36.	 Memmott, T., Carley, S., Graff, M. & Konisky, D. M. Utility
disconnection protections and the incidence of energy insecurity
in the United States. iScience 26, 106244 (2023).
37.	 Bednar, D. J. & Reames, T. G. Fleeting energy protections: state
and utility level policy responses to energy poverty in the United
States during COVID-19. Energy Res. Social Sci. 99, 103045
(2023).
38.	 Riley, B. et al. Disconnected during disruption: energy insecurity
of Indigenous Australian prepay customers during the COVID-19
pandemic. Energy Res. Social Sci. 99, 103049 (2023).
39.	 Legislation (AEMC, 2023); https://www.aemc.gov.au/regulation/
legislation
40.	 Telles Esteves, G. R., Cyrino Oliveira, F. L., Antunes, C. H. &
Souza, R. C. An overview of electricity prepayment experiences
and the Brazilian new regulatory framework. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 54, 704–722 (2016).
41.	 Prepayment Rules and Protections—A Call for Evidence—Response
from Citizens Advice to Ofgem (Citizens Advice, 2023); https://
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/CitizensAdvice/Energy/
Citizens%20Advice%20response%20to%20Prepayment%20
rules%20and%20Protections%20-%20call%20for%20
evidence%20March%202023.pdf
42.	 Protecting Customers Affected by Family Violence (AEMC, 2022);
https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-09/RRC%20
0042%20Information%20Sheet_Protecting%20customers%20
affected%20by%20family%20violence_clean%20copy.pdf
43.	 Langton, M. et al. Improving Family Violence Legal and Support
Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women
(Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety
Limited, 2020); https://anrowsdev.wpenginepowered.com/
wp-content/uploads/2019/02/AT.19.03_Langton_RR-FVsupport-
Women.pdf
44.	 Barreca, A., Park, R. J. & Stainier, P. High temperatures and
electricity disconnections for low-income homes in California.
Nat. Energy 7, 1052–1064 (2022).
45.	 Longden, T. The impact of temperature on mortality across
different climate zones. Climatic Change 157, 221–242 (2019).
46.	 Friedman, C. Unsafe temperatures, going without necessities, and
unpayable bills: energy insecurity of people with disabilities in the
United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Energy Res. Social
Sci. 92, 102806 (2022).
47.	 Dobbins, A., Fuso Nerini, F., Deane, P. & Pye, S. Strengthening the
EU response to energy poverty. Nat. Energy 4, 2–5 (2019).
48.	 Kyprianou, I. et al. Energy poverty policies and measures in 5 EU
countries: a comparative study. Energy Build. 196, 46–60 (2019).
49.	 Shrimali, G. & Jenner, S. The impact of state policy on deployment
and cost of solar photovoltaic technology in the U.S.: a
sector-specific empirical analysis. Renew. Energy 60, 679–690
(2013).
50.	 Stevens, K. A., Iman, S. & Davis, K. O. The cost of utility discretion
on residential solar requirements. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
159, 112231 (2022).
51.	 Carley, S. Distributed generation: an empirical analysis of primary
motivators. Energy Policy 37, 1648–1659 (2009).
52.	 Riley, B. et al. Connected: rooftop solar, prepay and reducing
energy insecurity in remote Australia. Aust. Geogr. 54, 325–346
(2023).
53.	 Annual Report 2021/22 Results (Horizon Power, 2022); https://
www.horizonpower.com.au/about-us/our-performance/
54.	 Fraser, N. From Redistribution to Recognition?: Dilemmas of justice
in a ‘postsocialist’ age. New Soc. Theory Reader https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781003060963-30 (2020).
55.	 Sovacool, B. K. & Dworkin, M. H. Energy justice: conceptual
insights and practical applications. Appl. Energy 142, 435–444
(2015).
56.	 Park, S. Digital inequalities in rural Australia: a double jeopardy
of remoteness and social exclusion. J. Rural Stud. 54, 399–407
(2017).
57.	 McCauley, D. et al. Energy justice in the transition to low carbon
energy systems: exploring key themes in interdisciplinary
research. Appl. Energy 233–234, 916–921 (2019).
58.	 Yenneti, K. & Day, R. Procedural (in)justice in the implementation
of solar energy: the case of Charanaka solar park, Gujarat, India.
Energy Policy 86, 664–673 (2015).
59.	 Owen, J. R. et al. Energy transition minerals and their intersection
with land-connected peoples. Nat. Sustain. 6, 203–211 (2023).
60.	 Tornel, C. Decolonizing energy justice from the ground up:
political ecology, ontology, and energy landscapes. Prog. Hum.
Geogr. 47, 43–65 (2023).
61.	 O’Neill, L. et al. Renewable energy development on the
Indigenous estate: free, prior and informed consent and best
practice in agreement-making in Australia. Energy Res. Social Sci.
81, 102252 (2021).
62.	 Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA+) (The Australian
Centre for Housing Research & University of Adelaide, 2021);
https://able.adelaide.edu.au/housing-research/data-gateway/aria
63.	 Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2021
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023); https://www.
abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/
socio-economic-indexes-areas-seifa-australia/latest-release
64.	 Mora, C. et al. Global risk of deadly heat. Nat. Clim. Change 7,
501–506 (2017).
65.	 Lansbury Hall, N. & Crosby, L. Climate change impacts on health
in remote indigenous communities in Australia. Int. J. Environ.
Health Res. 32, 487–502 (2022).
66.	 Weeramanthri, T. S., Quilty, S. & Campbell, S. L. Climate, extreme
heat and human health: risks and lessons for Australia. Med. J.
Aust. 215, 393–395 (2021).
67.	 Zander, K. K., Shalley, F., Taylor, A., Tan, G. & Dyrting, S. ‘Run
air-conditioning all day’: adaptation pathways to increasing heat
in the Northern Territory of Australia. Sustainable Cities Soc. 74,
103194 (2021).
68.	 Quilty, S. et al. The relative value of sociocultural and
infrastructural adaptations to heat in a very hot climate in

Nature Energy | Volume 9 | January 2024 | 92–105
105
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5
northern Australia: a case time series of heat-associated mortality.
Lancet Planet. Health 7, e684–e693 (2023).
69.	 Objective and Outcomes: Closing the Gap (Department of the
Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020); https://www.closingthegap.
gov.au/national-agreement/national-agreement-closing-the-gap/
3-objective-and-outcomes
70.	 Socioeconomic Outcome Area 9: Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander People Secure Appropriate, Affordable Housing that is
Aligned with their Priorities and Need (Closing the Gap Information
Repository—Productivity Commission, 2023); https://www.
pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard/socioeconomic/
outcome-area9
71.	 AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Research (AIATSIS, 2020); https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/
files/2020-10/aiatsis-code-ethics.pdf
72.	 Middleton, J. Statutory interpretation: mostly common sense?
Melbourne Univ. Law Rev. 40, 626–656 (2017).
73.	 Edelman, J. in The World of Maritime and Commercial Law: Essays
in Honour of Francis Rose (eds Mitchell, C. & Watterson, S.)
243–258 (Hart Publishing, 2020).
Acknowledgements
L.V.W., B.R., L.O., F.M. and S.W. received funding from Energy
Consumers Australia (ECA) under grant ARFEB22001 as part of its
grants process for consumer advocacy projects and research projects
for the benefit of consumers of electricity and natural gas. The views
expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of
ECA. The research was also supported by the Australian National
University’s Zero-Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Grand Challenge
and by Melbourne Climate Futures at the University of Melbourne.
We thank, for their continued collaboration and support, the staff at
the Tangentyere Research Hub (Mparntwe/Alice Springs), Julalikari
Aboriginal Corporation (Warumungu/Tennant Creek), Original Power
and the First Nations Clean Energy Network. We also thank those
organizations that engaged throughout the project, namely the
Northern Territory Council of Social Service (NTCOSS), the South
Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS), the Western Australian
Council of Social Service (WACOSS), Original Power, the First Nations
Clean Energy Network (FNCEN), Tangentyere Council Research Hub,
Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network (ICAN), Weipa Community
Care, ECA and the Australian Energy Regulator (AER).
Author contributions
L.V.W., B.R., S.W., L.O., M.K. and V.N.D. contributed to conceptualization
of the research. We especially note the contributions of M.K. and
V.N.D. in shaping our understanding of the key issues faced by
Indigenous communities in the NT. F.M. developed the customized
geographies essential to settlement identification and worked with
S.W. to validate and refine this new methodology. S.W. led data
curation, that is, reviewed regulatory documents and established the
dataset. L.V.W. and S.W. reviewed the regulation dataset to establish
and implement mapping and analysis protocols. L.V.W., S.W. and
B.R. conducted three rounds of engagement and consultations with
32 intermediaries from energy, housing, health and social service
organizations. L.V.W., S.W., B.R., F.M. and L.O. wrote the initial draft of
the paper, and L.V.W., B.R., S.W., F.M., L.O., M.K. and V.N.D. contributed
to subsequent review and revisions. L.V.W., S.W., B.R., F.M. and L.O.
acquired funding for the work. L.V.W. conducted statistical analysis
and geographic information systems (GIS) mapping, and her role
included supervision. L.V.W. and S.W. managed project administration.
F.M. contributed to GIS mapping.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information The online version
contains supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01422-5.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed
to Lee V. White.
Peer review information Nature Energy thanks Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh,
Nicola Willand and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their
contribution to the peer review of this work.
Reprints and permissions information is available at
www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2024

    Scientific Research Study Methods:

Answer: We created a dataset of electricity retail protections and solar access conditions for 3,047 Australian settlements nationwide. We did this by reviewing 284 legal documents (legislation, contracts, licences, authorities, codes and exemptions) to establish the presence (or the absence) of electricity retail protections and their conditions. Communities were only considered to have a protection if all customer types, both prepay and post‑pay, had unambiguous protections granted in legal documents. We used multiple logistic regression (n = 2,996) to examine whether remote and Indigenous communities were less likely to have each of the five protections mapped individually and combined, while controlling for settlement‑level population and socioeconomic disadvantage. We use a simple count as the most transparent indicator of locations facing disadvantage in multiple areas, whilst being mindful that this may not fully capture regulation in each practical application.