







































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 6(2): 83-111, July 2023 

RESEARCH PAPER 

Who Accesses Solar PV? Energy Justice and Climate 
Justice in a Local Government Rooftop Solar 
Programme 
 

Julianne Tice and Simon PJ Batterbury  

 
Abstract: Certain groups within society, such as the poor, the elderly, and those 

renting their homes, are at risk of bearing disproportionate costs from the 

transition to a low-carbon economy. These groups are particularly at risk of energy- 

and climate-related injustices linked to their ability to purchase sufficient energy 

(low-carbon or otherwise) or to adequately heat or cool their homes. The Solar 

Saver programme in Melbourne, Australia, was an early attempt by Darebin City 

Council, a local government, to address these issues. The programme enables 

seniors, low-income residents, and tenants in the City of Darebin to install solar PV 

in their homes at no upfront cost. The system costs are repaid interest-free over 10 

years through residents’ council rates. This article assesses the success of the 

programme in reaching its target audience and achieving justice for participants in 

2018 and 2019. We find that local councils are important and trusted delivery 

agents of household energy programmes. We also find that schemes like Solar 

Saver must be actively targeted to achieve energy- and climate-justice outcomes for 

residents who are at risk of energy poverty and disproportionate climate impacts.  

Keywords: Energy justice; Energy poverty; Climate justice; Solar PV; Renewable 
energy. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Despite its benefits, there are financial and human costs to transitioning to 
a renewable-based, low-carbon economy. In this transition, improving 
energy efficiency in high-consumption homes as well as decarbonising 

 
 University of Melbourne.  ticejulianne@gmail.com  
 Associate Professor, SGEAS and Melbourne Climate Futures, University of Melbourne, 
Australia. simonpjb@unimelb.edu.au 
Copyright © Tice and Batterbury 2023. Released under Creative Commons Attribution © 

NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of  Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v6i2.748  

mailto:ticejulianne@gmail.com
mailto:simonpjb@unimelb.edu.au
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v6i2.748


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [84] 
 

industry, electricity generation, transportation, and other critical sectors is 
vital (Sovacool, Lipson, and Chard 2019; Carley and Konisky 2020). In 
developed economies, where carbon reduction efforts are strongest and are 
beginning to be heavily legislated, an “inclusive, just energy transition” 
involves “structural transformations” towards meeting the 1.5°C objective 
in the Paris Agreement (UN Energy 2021). Differences in levels of 
government support, housing tenure, and energy efficiency can leave the 
poor, the elderly, and those renting their homes at risk of bearing the 
financial and practical costs of this transition (Ashby et al. 2020; Bickerstaff, 
Walker, and Bulkeley 2013b).  

Melbourne, Australia, a large metropolis of almost five million people, 
experiences strong temperature variability—in 2021, temperatures ranged 
from –3.7 °C at night in May to 41.5 °C during the day in January (Bureau 
of Meteorology 2023). As a result, household energy bills can run up to 
thousands of dollars a year, even with a deregulated market for electricity as 
well as the availability of natural gas in some areas (Wrigley 2023). Energy 
or fuel poverty exists in the region, meaning some households cannot 
afford to use as much energy as required to live well, especially when costs 
rise (Day, Walker, and Simcock 2016; Waitt and Harada 2019). In addition, 
as climate variability increases and climactic events become more severe, 
these groups may face greater difficulties coping with the impacts of climate 
change—such as increased heat waves—than the general population 
(Bickerstaff, Walker, and Bulkeley 2013a).  

Across the world, state-led programmes that are aimed at addressing energy 
poverty in low-income and senior households often face challenges, with 
some programmes inadvertently imposing unfair or disproportionate costs 
on vulnerable residents (Bickerstaff, Walker, and Bulkeley 2013b). 
Distributional inequalities in access to low-cost, sustainable energy may 
occur. With the energy transition already underway in Australia, identifying 
ways to reach those who may have difficulties in dealing with temperature 
extremes and energy transition costs is vital. This article charts the strengths 
and weaknesses of an innovative residential rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) 
programme, arguably the first of its type, which was designed to assist 
residents in the City of Darebin who were in need of reduced power costs. 
We explain how the project has operated over time, whom it has reached, 
and the general lessons it offers for other energy transition programmes.  

Specifically, the article determines the extent to which this solar PV 
programme has been successful in achieving climate justice (CJ) and energy 
justice (EJ). Its success is determined by how well the programme has been 
able to reach its target audience; the household income of participants, 
which acts as a proxy for the extent of financial assistance required to 



[85] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

acquire solar PV to access low-cost energy; and the extent to which the 
participants have been better able to access affordable energy after solar PV 
installation. 

Box 1: Australian Climate Policy, 2012–2022 

Recent Australian Climate Policy: 2012–2022 

Australia is a significant contributor to climate change due to its mining activities 
and export of fossil fuels (McDonald 2015), making climate policy a contentious 
political issue. Until very recently, Australia had chosen economic security over 
climate action, despite its vulnerability to the impacts of climate change (McDonald 
2015). Australia introduced a carbon price in 2012, which was repealed in 2013 
after the election of a conservative federal government (Crowley 2017). The next 
eight years saw a stalemate on climate policy under this government. The Morrison 
government announced its target of reaching net zero by 2050 in 2021 (Taylor 
2021), and the centre-left Labor government elected in 2022 quickly legislated this 
target, along with an interim target of 43% emissions reduction compared to 2005 
levels by 2030 (McAllister 2022). 

Source: Crowley (2017); McAllister (2022); McDonald (2015); Taylor (2021) 

1.1 Background on the Solar PV Programme 

The case presented here is of a residential rooftop solar PV programme, 
called Solar Saver (SS), in the City of Darebin, a Melbourne local 
government area (LGA) located just northeast of the Melbourne central 
business district, with a target audience of low-income residents, seniors, 
and tenants (hereafter referred to as the “target audience”). Similar to 
Melbourne as a whole, the City of Darebin is a moderately affluent city with 
wide income diversity. Darebin City Council was the first local government 
in the world to declare a “climate emergency” (Council Action in the 
Climate Emergency n.d.) and is known in Melbourne for being progressive 
and environmentally conscious. 

The programme began in 2014 and has had varied eligibility criteria from 
year to year since its inception to the present day (see Table 1). In 2018–19, 
it aimed to cover some of the upfront costs of rooftop solar PV for these 
households and to support residents in dealing with climate impacts and 
energy costs (Darebin City Council 2015). The programme had previously 
been identified as an innovative and award-winning renewable energy 
financing model (Mey, Diesendorf, and MacGill 2016; Meiklejohn et al. 
2018) and as a successful means of addressing the problems that energy 
programmes targeted at vulnerable populations encounter (Browne and 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [86] 
 

Schultz-Byard 2021; Law, Meiklejohn, and Mountjoy 2015; Toovey and 
Malin 2016). 

The programme offers a no-interest loan for solar panels and installation, 
which is delivered by the local government rather than the private sector. 
Residents repay the loan over 10 years through a special charge on their 
council rates (Darebin City Council 2016b). In Australia, council rates are 
quarterly local government taxes that cover essential services such as waste 
collection and road maintenance. This special charge is enabled through the 
Victorian Local Government Act 1989, the main piece of legislation in the state 
governing the establishment and operation of local councils, and charges 
are due from the owners of each property (Darebin City Council 2018b). 
One innovation of the SS programme was that homeowners and tenants 
were both eligible to participate, recognising that renting is usually a severe 
barrier to installing renewable energy systems on a property. However, 
tenants have to obtain approval from their landlord to participate.1  

The complication in this case is that the eligibility criteria and the size of the 
programme have changed from year to year (see Table 1). Several “rounds” 
have been offered since 2014, each with limits on how many households 
could receive discounted rooftop solar PV. In 2018–2019, eligibility for the 
scheme was opened to all residents, with the priority target audience 
remaining low-income residents, pensioners, and renters, to facilitate 
residents’ access to the scheme and increase penetration of rooftop solar 
PV systems in the City of Darebin (see section “4.1 Expansion of the SS 
Programme”). 

Table 1 captures the eligibility criteria used by the programme since its 
inception. In this table, “senior” refers either to those aged 60 years or 
above or those having a partial capacity to work and with incomes under a 
certain threshold (Services Australia 2020). “Low income” refers to 
households with a total income under US$55,2122 per year, with over 30% 
of this income spent on average on rent or mortgage, and a combined 
income under US$44,020 per year (Darebin City Council 2020). To be 
eligible, tenants must rent privately from a landlord or a real estate agent 
and must meet the low-income criteria. Reaching these residents is 
important as they are more likely to be disadvantaged than owner-
occupiers, and, thus, less likely to be able to afford the high costs associated 
with purchasing a home (Australian Government Productivity Commission 
2019) or participate in energy transitions away from fossil fuels. The 

 
1 An alternative programme is also offered in Darebin through which residents pay the 
system costs upfront at a discounted price due to economies of scale (City of Darebin 2018). 
2 Currency conversion based on AU$1=US$0.75. 



[87] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

majority of electricity in Victoria is still sourced from its ample supplies of 
energy-intensive brown coal, although that percentage is dropping rapidly as 
supply from renewables increases. It is illegal for landlords to pass on the 
costs associated with solar PV installation to tenants through the 
programme, meaning that only landlords must pay even if the solar PV 
installation is requested by the tenant.  

Table 1: Eligibility Criteria in Different Rounds of the SS Programme and the 
Number of Participants in Each Round  

Year Eligibility Number of Participants 

2014 Seniors only 300 

2015 Seniors only 200 

2016 Seniors, low-income & tenants 207 

2017 Pause in programme – 

2018 Open eligibility 481 

2019 Open eligibility 518 

2020 Low income only 113 

2021 Low income only 74 

2022 Low-income and renters 36 (as of November 2022) 

Source: Darebin City Council (2017a; 2016a; 2018a; 2019c; 2019b; 2019a)  

1.2 Climate Justice and Energy Justice 

Despite the recent reductions in production costs, solar panels, their 
associated controllers, and wiring add up to significant costs. This means 
that households that have a higher financial capacity are generally more 
likely to be able to access solar panels and their associated benefits, while 
those with fewer resources are less likely to install them (Boardman 1993, 
2012). This article addresses whether this inequality in access to solar PV is 
addressed or reinforced through the SS programme. 

Similar forms of inequality have been theorised as key elements in climate 
justice (CJ), which applies “conceptions of distributive and social justice” 
(Schlosberg 2013, 46) to the climate debate and draws attention to 
differential inequalities in the impacts of climate change. CJ developed from 
the North American environmental justice movement (Schlosberg and 
Collins 2014). Similarly, the term energy justice (EJ) applies the principles of 
unequal access to energy consumption, including barriers to accessing 
available options as a response to high utility costs and extreme weather 
(Jenkins et al. 2016). EJ applies principles of justice to various dimensions of 
energy, focusing on the victims of injustices—for example, those with 
insufficient access to energy, such as cooling—and maps the localities 
where such injustice occurs (Jenkins et al. 2016). The proponents of these 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [88] 
 

concepts discuss “energy poverty” (Day, Walker, and Simcock 2016) or 
“fuel poverty” (Waitt and Harada 2019), which are interpreted as symptoms 
of energy injustice. In the energy justice field, distributional injustices are 
identified to reduce inequities in access to adequate energy (Jenkins et al. 
2016).  

CJ and EJ encompass several dimensions (see Table 2). These dimensions 
of justice acknowledge that groups within an area—here, an LGA—
experience climate risk and energy access unequally (Forsyth 2014). For this 
reason, programmes to address CJ and EJ must be targeted towards the 
most affected groups to ensure justice is achieved. 

Table 2: Conceptions of Justice as They Relate to Climate Justice and Energy 
Justice 

Dimension 
of Justice 

Climate Justice Energy Justice 

Distributive Geographic distribution of 
climate change impacts 
(Schlosberg and Collins 
2014). 

Distribution of benefits and 
detriments of energy 
infrastructure and services 
(Jenkins et al. 2016, 176). 

Procedural Participation of a range of 
actors in climate change–
related policymaking 
processes (Schlosberg 
2004). 

“Access to decision-making 
processes that govern the 
distributions” of benefits and 
detriments of energy 
infrastructure and services 
(Jenkins et al. 2016, 176–178). 

Recognition Acknowledgement of 
differential climate change 
impacts between groups 
(Schlosberg 2004). 

 “Adequate recognition of all 
actors” including social aspects, 
cultural contributions, and 
concerning the law (Uffelen 
2022, 7). 

Source: Schlosberg (2004); Schlosberg and Collins (2014); Jenkins et al. (2016); 
Uffelen (2022) 

Our key research question is whether the SS programme successfully 
addresses both of these conceptions of injustice, differentiated by the type 
of home occupancy. Survey and interview questions were designed to 
determine the respondents’ level of energy access before and after solar 
panel installation as well as their specific situation, including dwelling type, 
income level, and housing tenure.  

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 

Installation of rooftop solar PV in Australia has increased drastically in 
recent years, as costs per kilowatt (kW) have reduced (Clean Energy 



[89] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

Council 2022). Regardless, groups who would benefit the most from the 
associated energy and cost savings continue to be left out of the solar PV 
market because they lack capabilities—such as the ability to pay upfront 
costs—exacerbating socio-spatial inequalities in the urban landscape (Bridge 
and Gailing 2020, 1037). Though the SS programme targets solar PV 
installations by low-income residents, tenants, and seniors, the extent to 
which these groups benefit is unclear.  

Inequalities that arise in access to solar PV occur at multiple scales of the 
energy transition, since urban environments such as Melbourne—a western 
city with sharp income differentials and racial diversity—have “uneven 
power relations” (Heynen 2014, 600). The urban political ecology of 
renewables indicates that only well-off residents can access solar, but the 
aim is to establish an “empowering… socionatural condition” (Heynen 
2014, 600) addressing the differential access to this particular resource.  

CJ focuses on inequalities in the distribution of climate change impacts and 
addresses these inequalities through the transition to a zero-carbon 
economy by “providing assistance to vulnerable communities” (Schlosberg 
and Collins 2014, 366) most heavily impacted by climate change. The 
approach began as a response to capitalist modes of energy production 
where energy producers profit while accelerating climate change and 
unjustly and disproportionately impacting vulnerable communities (ibid).  

The CJ and EJ frameworks both encompass concerns around who benefits 
from and who bears the costs of emissions-mitigating activities, as well as 
the varying degrees of capability to respond to climate change through 
mitigation and adaptation (Jenkins 2018). The two approaches can be 
considered in parallel. For example, the rising costs of energy may worsen 
and exacerbate affordability issues as climate change intensifies (Jenkins et 
al. 2016; Shepard and Corbin-Mark 2009). EJ posits that humans should 
have adequate access to energy as a basic human right (Day, Walker, and 
Simcock 2016), while the CJ perspective “means providing for those rights 
to which we have already agreed” (Schlosberg and Collins 2014, 365), such 
as access to energy. An integrated approach to EJ and CJ would address 
inequities in access to affordable energy while also addressing the 
inequitable impacts of climate change. Redressing inequity can include 
providing affordable, low-carbon cooling during heat waves. Addressing CJ 
without explicitly focusing on EJ risks placing the costs of climate action on 
the already vulnerable disproportionately, thus exacerbating energy 
injustices (Walker and Day 2012).  



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [90] 
 

Local governments are an important site of climate governance and for 
addressing CJ, because they are physically close to the people they govern in 
cities such as Melbourne (Broto and Bulkeley 2013). In addition, while they 
are municipal institutions that must deliver value for money, they are not 
capitalist or profit-seeking. They have direct interaction with “people’s lived 
experience of climate change” (McKendry 2016, 1357). In the absence of a 
strong national climate policy (see Figure 1; Mey, Diesendorf, and MacGill 
2016; Hadfield and Cook 2019), some local governments stepped in much 
earlier by setting their own emissions targets and implementing carbon 
mitigation programmes (Mey, Diesendorf, and MacGill 2016; Darebin City 
Council 2017b; Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Batterbury 2010). Addressing 
inequalities in access to renewables is one way local governments can 
attempt to address both CJ and EJ, although other local government 
programmes worldwide, operating at similar scales or with similar budgets, 
have been criticised for exacerbating existing inequalities (McKendry 2016; 
Broto and Bulkeley 2013).  

3. METHODS 

The research was conducted using a questionnaire targeted at programme 
participants and interviews with programme participants, Darebin City 
Council staff, and city councillors.3 The questionnaire revealed general 
information on participants’ attitudes and motivations and the impact of 
solar PV on their energy consumption; participant interviews then 
expanded on this information. Interviews with staff and councillors were 
used to gain insight into the political and social context underpinning the 
programme. In this paper, “participants” refers to Darebin residents who 
took part in the SS programme; “interviewees” refers to individuals who 
were interviewed as part of this research.  

3.1 Questionnaire 

In October 2020, an email was sent out by the programme staff to all the 
participants of the 2018 and 2019 rounds, asking if they were interested in 
participating in the research. Responses were received through November 
2020. The questionnaire was then sent via email to willing respondents. 
Some 898 initial emails were sent out by programme staff; of these, 295 
(32.8%) were classified under the programme as “high priority” (i.e., low 
income or senior); 542 (60.4%) as “general priority”; and 60 (6.7%) as 
inconclusive (blank answer on the registration form). The questionnaire was 
returned by 48 respondents from different groups: they were self-selecting, 

 
3 Research clearance was obtained through the human ethics board at University of 
Melbourne.  



[91] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

with only highly engaged participants filling it out. However, the responses 
to individual questions indicate a bias towards participants who worked 
fewer hours or were retired, with fewer responses from those who were 
time-poor. Ethical considerations prevented us from recruiting potential 
respondents directly. Additionally, drawing respondents from the 2018 and 
2019 rounds made it difficult to fully assess the justice criteria, since the 
programme was open to any resident in Darebin in those two years.  

3.2 Interviews 

One questionnaire question asked participants to indicate whether they 
were interested in being followed up for an interview. From a sample of 41 
positive replies, four were randomly selected. Three of these individuals 
were retired and one was employed full-time. One of the retirees was on a 
low income, one was on a medium income, and one income unknown. The 
full-time employed individual was on a high income. Semi-structured 
interviews were conducted and recorded with the interviewee’s permission. 
From Darebin City Council, three individuals were interviewed: one former 
and one current elected councillor, and a former programme staff member. 
Direct quotes from these interviews are used in the key findings section, but 
they are not attributed to an individual to maintain confidentiality. 
Programme developments were monitored after the initial research was 
conducted. 

3.3 Analysis 

Questionnaire responses were examined to determine whether respondents 
were better able to afford the energy they consumed after solar PV 
installation and whether they were now able to use as much energy as 
needed. The analysis focused on affordability rather than gross cost savings. 
General questions were posed around the participants’ ability to afford all 
living expenses, including energy bills. The distinction made between 
“affordability” and “ability to use adequate energy” is crucial here. The 
former refers to a participant’s ability to afford energy and other bills.4 If 
they indicated that they were able to afford essential bills “mostly without 
problems” before solar and “with no problems” after, an improvement in 
affordability was recorded. The latter refers to the participant’s ability to use 

 
4 Determined by the difference in response to the questions “How well were you able to 
afford all your essential bills (energy, food, rent/mortgage, etc) before having the solar 
panels installed?” and “How well were you able to afford all your essential bills (energy, 
food, rent/mortgage, etc) after having the solar panels installed?” 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [92] 
 

energy.5 If a participant indicated they were able to heat their home “some 
of the time” before solar and “as much as I want” after, this was recorded 
as an improvement in the ability to use adequate energy. Greater 
improvements in affordability and energy use were taken as indications of 
higher levels of programme success and the achievement of EJ and CJ 
outcomes. 

People’s motivations for installing solar PV6 and the impact of solar on 
participants’ lives7 were also investigated. These questions determined 
whether participants had financial motivations for participating, indicating 
whether financial need drove decisions and thus whether the programme 
helped in achieving EJ, and potentially CJ, outcomes. Responses were 
grouped and counted to determine the frequency of responses. 

Participants’ income levels were also grouped into quintiles and compared 
with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data for the entire LGA, to 
determine the participation rates in each income group and the extent to 
which low-income groups had accessed the scheme. 

Interviews were transcribed using NVivo to code answers to key research 
questions as well as to identify themes. EJ, CJ, and inequalities in access to 
solar PV were examined, along with any emergent relevant but unexpected 
themes. Grouping interview codes relevant to the key research questions 
and identifying overarching themes based on the linkages between the 
codes assisted thematic analysis (Bryman 2012). 

3.4 Limitations 

The most significant limitation encountered was the lack of access to the 
original programme participants’ contact information. Council staff lacked 
the capacity to follow up on survey non-respondents. This meant that 
participants without an email were excluded from the survey. Additionally, 
council-wide electricity consumption data to enable a control group 
comparison against survey responses around bill cost changes after solar PV 
installation (Table 4) was sought but could not be obtained.  

 
5 Determined by the difference in response to the questions “To what degree were you able 
to heat your home in winter before having the solar panels installed?” and “To what degree 
are you now able to heat your home in winter as a result of having the solar panels 
installed?” 
6 Examined through the question “What was your main motivation for having solar panels 
installed on your home?” 
7 Examined through the question “How else has having solar panels installed on your home 
impacted your life? Please explain.” 



[93] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

4. KEY FINDINGS 

We report on selected findings, with a focus on the extent to which the SS 
programme has met the needs of poorer households. There are definitional 
problems in establishing “low income” as a proxy for justice. For this case 
study, we have inferred that low income refers to anyone receiving 
Australian Government Centrelink payments (government assistance to 
those on low income); those with a total yearly household income less than 
US$55,212 (US$1,062 per week), with more than 30% spent on rent or 
mortgage; those with a total yearly household income less than US$44,020 
(US$847 per week), regardless of the proportion spent on rent or mortgage; 
or those receiving a “rates rebate”, which is a deduction on council rates for 
holders of eligible concession cards (e.g., pensioner concession card). A 
“senior” is a resident who holds a pensioner concession card (see section 
“1.1 Background on the Solar PV Programme” for pension eligibility). 

Household rather than individual incomes were taken as a wealth indicator 
since these form the eligibility criteria for the scheme and are a more 
realistic measure than individual earnings.8 Around 32.8% of SS participants 
in 2018–2019 self-classified themselves in their applications as “low 
income” or “senior” (data could not be disaggregated between the two 
categories). This data is not easily comparable with the Darebin LGA as a 
whole due to a lack of senior-specific ABS data. However, a rough 
percentage can be determined, as 14.2% of Darebin residents are aged 65 
and over, and 26% of Darebin residents earn a weekly household income 
under US$750 (Figure 1; in keeping with the SS programme’s definition of 
low income). Therefore, 40.2% of Darebin residents can be classified as 
either senior or low-income. There may be a degree of overlap between 
these categories. 

The income distribution of survey respondents ranged between US$375 
and US$1,950+ per week. The majority of survey respondents (41%) fell in 
the US$750 to US$1,350 per week income range, and no survey 
respondents fell in the lowest income category of less than US$375 per 
week. Additionally, 20.5% fell in the US$375–750 per week range and 
10.3% in the US$1,950+ category. 

While significant conclusions cannot be drawn, the percentage of 
participants accessing SS who identify as low-income or senior (32.8%) may 
be less than in Darebin as a whole (40.2%). Therefore, the programme may 

 
8 Eligibility criteria applies during restricted years, but not in 2018 and 2019. 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [94] 
 

not have adequately focused recruitment efforts on the target audience after 
the programme’s expansion in 2018–2019. 

Though examining EJ and CJ outcomes for those occupying rental 
properties was an objective of this research project, the programme did not 
adequately reach tenants. This could be seen from tenants’ lack of response 
to the survey (see “4.2 Low Uptake by Tenants”). 

Table 3 shows the percentage of survey respondents who experienced 
either an improvement in energy affordability after solar panel installation 
(i.e., an improvement in the ability to afford the energy they consumed after 
solar PV installation) or an improvement in energy use (i.e., an 
improvement in the ability to use as much energy as needed where they had 
been unable to previously), or both (see “3.3 Analysis”). Only 33.4% of 
respondents experienced an improvement in one or both measures, 
indicating either that most respondents had little difficulty in being able to 
afford or use adequate energy prior to the solar PV installation, or that the 
installation of solar PV did not help improve their situation. With all but 
four respondents reporting a decrease in energy bill costs after installation 
(Table 4), the former appears more likely.  

Table 3: Percentage of Survey Respondents who Experienced an Improvement in 
Energy Affordability, Energy Use, or Both (n=48) 

Measure % of Respondents 

Improvement in energy affordability 10.4 

Improvement in energy use 18.8 

Improvement in both affordability and energy 
use 

4.2 

Total 33.4 

Source: participant survey responses 

Table 4: Survey Respondents’ Answers to the Question “Please Estimate How 
Much Your Bills Have Reduced Since Having Solar Panels Installed” (n=48) 

Change in Bill Cost after Solar PV 
Installation 

% of Respondents 

Reduced by 0–25% 31.3 

Reduced by 26–50% 35.4 

Reduced by 51–75% 12.5 

Reduced by 76–100% 12.5 

Increased 2.1 

I don’t know 6.25 

Total 100 

Source: participant survey responses 



[95] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

As indicated by Table 5, only 25% of survey respondents reported that their 
major motivation for participation in SS was financial. These respondents 
also indicated energy bill reductions after solar PV installation, and one-
third also experienced an increase in either affordability or the ability to use 
adequate energy. Since this finding suggests that most participants were not 
motivated by finances, it does not support the attainment of EJ criteria 
through meeting financial need. Residents with higher incomes may have 
been motivated by financial savings, which may not be linked directly with 
an increase in affordability or adequate energy use. Environmental 
motivations were a driving factor for 60.4% of the participants, indicating 
that financial need was secondary for most of them. 

Table 5: Response Rates to the Survey Question “What Was Your Main 
Motivation for Having Solar Panels Installed on your Home?” (n=48) 

Motivation for Participation % of Respondents 

Environmental 60.4 

Financial 25.0 

Both environmental and financial 12.5 

Other (not specified) 2.1 

Total 100.0 

Source: Participant survey responses 

Table 6 lists the various ways in which having solar PV installed impacted 
survey respondents’ lives. Some 39.5% of the respondents made a positive 
behavioural adjustment in their energy consumption. After solar PV 
installation, 12.5% of the respondents became more aware of their energy 
consumption. While improving awareness of and changing behaviours 
around energy consumption is not an explicit aim of SS, it is a potentially 
significant outcome. The presence of solar panels may encourage more 
concern about energy use but may also encourage increased energy 
consumption. 

Additionally, 4.2% of the participants experienced improved thermal 
comfort after solar PV installation, and a further 4.2% of solar panel 
recipients felt less guilt about using electricity. Since there were no other 
efficiency upgrades made to homes as part of SS, an improvement in 
thermal comfort was not a specifically intended outcome of the 
programme. Instead, these participants likely felt more comfortable using 
their heating and cooling from a financial standpoint. Of these 8.4% 
respondents, one stated that “in the summer, as an older woman, I don’t 
have the stress of feeling too hot”—a clear EJ and CJ outcome, as the 
participant was able to improve their thermal comfort and reduce their 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [96] 
 

energy costs. However, another stated that “the main reason [for having 
solar PV installed] was to ‘power’ the three pool pumps”—it is unlikely any 
justice was obtained here, given the high cost of swimming pool ownership 
and maintenance. 

Interview transcripts from scheme managers and local elected officials 
responsible for the scheme were analysed for emerging themes. Three 
major themes emerged: 

• Maintaining and actively reaching the target audience became 
difficult after the SS programme’s expansion; 

• SS has low uptake among tenants; and 

• The local council plays a unique role in delivering the programme. 

Table 6: Frequency of Responses to the Survey Question “How Else Has Having 
Solar Panels Installed on Your Home Impacted Your Life? Please Explain.” If a 
Respondent Gave Multiple Answers, all Answers were Counted (n=48) 

Response Frequency % of Respondents 

Made a behavioural adjustment in 
energy use 

19 39.5 

Financial impact 12 25.0 

Improved environmental contribution 7 14.5 

Increased awareness of energy 
consumption 

6 12.5 

No other way 4 8.3 

Reduced guilt about energy 
consumption 

2 4.2 

Improved thermal comfort 2 4.2 

Other 2 4.2 

Source: participant survey responses 

4.1 Expansion of the SS Programme 

In 2018, the SS programme expanded from its initial focus on poorer or 
disadvantaged households to include all residents. The aim became to 
double the solar generation capacity in Darebin from 19 MW to 38 MW 
(Darebin City Council 2017b). This caused several problems for SS, 
including financial strain on the council, a surge in demand for 
participation, and difficulties in reaching the households genuinely requiring 
financial assistance. 

First, programme expansion strained council budgets, as the greatest 
proportion of funds were put towards installation costs, with “a small 
amount that went into… operations”. However, “administration costs 
were—are—significant”, despite the programme being perceived as 
understaffed; in the words of one respondent, “ambition from councillors 



[97] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

was not translating into the appropriate resourcing and organizational 
support [from the Council].” Upon programme expansion, there was “a lot 
of cash going out, and only a little trickle coming back in”, resulting in a 
significant deficit for the council. In 2020, the programme was scaled back 
to the pre-2018 target households only, “mainly because of the impact of 
COVID-19 on the budget”, but also partially “to maintain the programme 
into the future”. This demonstrates the enduring financial strain of 
programme expansion, which was made particularly difficult by the 
pandemic.  

Second, the expansion of SS caused a surge in demand and led to associated 
delays in installation. One interviewee noted that the council was “so maxed 
out on our waiting list, we weren’t promoting it for the past two years 
because we couldn’t fit everybody in”. One participant interviewee said that 
they “didn’t hear anything [from the council] for quite a few months”, 
causing uncertainty about their inclusion in the scheme. This excess 
demand became an issue for SS: understaffing meant that prospective 
participants waited months for their installation to begin, and SS lacked the 
capacity to focus recruitment efforts on its target audience. Despite the 
backlog, a former SS staff interviewee confirmed that “we will always 
prioritise [seniors] and low-income households so that they weren’t on any 
waiting list; they would just get in”; this was done by prioritising sending 
these households to suppliers first.  

Third, the scheme encountered difficulties in reaching senior and low-
income households in general. One interviewee asserted that “in the early 
iteration of [the scheme], before we injected more money into it, it was 
absolutely a success. In terms of, you know, reaching those [senior] 
households, not so much low income.” Another interviewee stated, “I 
would say though, once we did expand the programme, whether we actually 
concentrated our recruitment efforts enough to make sure that we’re 
continuing to capture the vulnerable parts of the community, maybe that’s a 
question.” 

These claims are supported by the survey responses from a substantial 
proportion of senior participants, but an under-representative proportion of 
low-income respondents (see Figure 1). 

Another interviewee stated that “once we got to a certain scale… there was 
a little bit of worry that we weren’t managing that aspect of it around the 
poverty.” While SS became successful in overall participation, it is evident 
that the target audience may not have been adequately prioritised after 
programme expansion.  



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [98] 
 

4.2 Low Uptake by Tenants 

Enabling access to solar PV by tenants was a clear goal of SS, with council 
documents stating that the “council will continue to explore innovative 
ways of engaging tenants and landlords to jointly participate in the 
program” (Darebin City Council 2017a, 2) after expansion and council 
interviewees stating that “there was a lot of work done on engaging real 
estate agents and [tenants]”. It is crucial to note here that the aim was to get 
landlords, not tenants, to pay for any costs to their properties such that the 
solar panels would remain on the property should tenants move on.  

Despite this important distinction, there is evidence that reaching tenants 
became a real challenge over the scheme’s various iterations: this issue was 
brought up several times by interviewees, and though there is anecdotal 
evidence that there were some tenant participants, it only amounted to “a 
handful each round”. This was reflected in the survey responses, which 
included no tenants. 

The difficulty in reaching tenants through home upgrade programmes is 
due in large part to the split incentive phenomenon, where landlords lack 
incentives to upgrade their rental properties with energy-efficiency measures 
and solar PV because they are responsible for the costs but do not realise 
the benefits (Bird and Hernández 2012). Despite claims that the SS model 
has overcome the split incentive (Browne and Schultz-Byard 2021), the 
programme has unfortunately been unsuccessful in doing so.  

Interestingly, one of the randomly selected participant interviewees, who 
was a landlord, offered some insight into the perceptions of landlords 
towards helping their tenants access solar energy, “Why would we want to 
give them solar panels and we’re having to pay for it? The landlord would 
want to call back that money [for the solar panels] by increasing the rent”. 
Due to the structure of SS and its utilization of the Victorian Local 
Government Act for rate repayments, landlords are legally unable to share 
costs with tenants, making the split incentive an enduring issue. However, 
in 2022, a stream was added to the scheme for tenants, wherein landlords 
were made to be solely responsible for repayments (Darebin City Council 
2022b). 

Ultimately, as one interviewee suggested, engaging tenants “was just put in 
the ‘too hard’ basket… I think that perhaps we could have done more 
work. It was kind of a lower priority because we already had great uptake 
for the programme”.  



[99] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

4.3 The Role of the Local Council 

An integral component of SS is the local council as the delivery agent. The 
Council is politically progressive and was effectively led by the Australian 
Greens party during the study period, in an alliance with independently 
elected councillors. As the first local government in the world to declare a 
“climate emergency”, Darebin is well-known and regarded as “an 
environmentally conscious city” and very much sees itself as a leader and a 
“role model for others” in climate action. 

The ability of Victorian councils to declare special rates [local government 
taxes] through the Local Government Act is a critical financial mechanism 
for SS, enabling participants to receive solar PV with no upfront costs. 
Other entities in the state do not possess this repayment mechanism, 
making delivery through local councils key. Indeed, the state-wide Solar 
Savers scheme was introduced through a pilot in 2016 based on the SS 
model. Solar Savers initially operated in 26 rural and metropolitan Victorian 
LGAs and offered solar PV to senior households through a low-interest 
bank loan or the same rates repayment mechanism offered by SS (Eastern 
Alliance for Greenhouse Action n.d.). Currently, only nine metropolitan 
and one rural Victorian LGA offers Solar Savers to low-income and senior 
households through a low-interest loan or through a bulk buy mechanism 
(where economies of scale enable discounted costs) (Solar Savers 2019).  

One participant stressed the importance of the council’s role in educating 
residents, stating that its distribution of the programme’s informational 
materials prompted him to “update [his] knowledge” and realise that solar 
PV is no longer as expensive as it once was. Another participant noted the 
importance of the council’s engagement around SS, which enabled them to 
realise that they were eligible. Several interviewees mentioned that “people 
trust the council”, which was integral for participants to trust its suppliers 
and to believe they were getting a fair deal. The council’s role in procuring 
suppliers on behalf of participants removes a potentially insurmountable 
barrier for some: 

There was a role for the council because, particularly for 
vulnerable households, the cost is not the only barrier. In 
fact, it’s potentially an even bigger barrier to be able to 
navigate the solar [installation] system and advocate for 
yourself with a solar company and power companies, to 
even just be able to understand the information and have 
the confidence and the trust that you’re getting a reliable 
supplier who’s not going to rip you off. 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [100] 
 

Despite the relative affluence of some interviewees, they mentioned 
uncertainty around finding a trustworthy solar installer and the burden of 
having to navigate the system, indicating the importance of this element of 
the programme. 

The council’s role in SS was also significant because it filled a policy void 
left by the Australian federal government. Interviewees from within the 
council believe that “it’s way more efficient and better and will provide a 
more orderly transition for communities, society, the economy, if [this 
programme is] done at a federal and state level. But without that, we need 
to keep chipping away, even if it’s just rooftop by rooftop reducing 
emissions”. While local councils are “ideally placed” to run this type of 
programme, “they don’t have the money”, making it preferable for the state 
or federal government to provide funding while local councils deliver. 
Federal funding could ensure that benefits reach all Australians, not just 
residents of Victoria. In the absence of this support, however, the council 
sees itself as putting “upwards pressure towards other levels of 
government” to take similar action on climate issues. The programme has 
been successful in doing this, to a degree—the Solar Savers scheme was 
introduced in 2016 and the Solar Victoria (SV) scheme in 2018. SV is run 
by the Victorian government and offers a rebate to eligible households9 for 
solar PV, solar hot water, solar batteries, and other energy-efficient 
appliances (Solar Victoria 2021c). SV differs from SS in that participants 
must pay for system costs upfront but they receive a discount on costs. 
Additionally, tenants and landlords are legally able to share and repay costs 
with a no-interest loan on tenanted properties (Solar Victoria 2021b). 

5. DISCUSSION 

The combination of survey results and the SS programme’s larger dataset 
reveals that most SS participants in 2018–2019 owned their homes, receive 
a moderate to high income, and live in a single-family dwelling. 
Determining the degree to which the SS programme achieved CJ or EJ 
outcomes—which is not completely satisfactory given the recipients’ 
profiles—requires a comparison of the programme’s goals and 
achievements during the years examined. 

To briefly revisit the definitions of justice, EJ was defined as the 
distributional aspect of inequities in access to energy (Jenkins et al. 2016), 
and CJ refers to the disproportionate climate impacts that vulnerable 
communities face, such as an inability to cool or heat a home (Schlosberg 

 
9 Eligible households include those with a household taxable income under US$134,028 with 
a property valued under US$2.2 million (Solar Victoria 2021a). 



[101] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

and Collins 2014). Based on these definitions, we hope to identify positive 
outcomes in terms of the three indicators described in the following 
paragraphs. When coupled with the positive outcomes associated with these 
indicators, the programme’s ability to reach its target audience indicates that 
those who may bear disproportionate costs and impacts of climate change 
were reached, an indication of both EJ and CJ outcomes.  

First, a greater percentage of the target audience’s residents participated in 
SS than are found within the general Darebin population. This indicates 
that the target audience was effectively reached by the programme. Around 
32.8% of the participants in 2018–2019 self-identified as low-income or 
senior; this was not significantly higher than the 40.2% of low-income or 
senior residents in the entire Darebin population. A higher percentage of 
these cohorts served through the programme would indicate that these 
cohorts – the program’s target audience – were reached effectively through 
the programme. Since this percentage was lower, the target audience was 
likely somewhat displaced by more affluent residents after the programme’s 
expansion. 

Second, participants were primarily motivated by financial savings. Financial 
motivation indicates that financial assistance with energy costs was required, 
which is consistent with mitigating EJ (Walker and Day 2012). The SS 
programme does seem to have achieved EJ to an extent for 25%10 of 
participants who required financial assistance to access adequate energy.  

Third, participants who received solar panels experienced an improvement 
in energy affordability and/or energy use. Improvements in energy 
affordability and/or energy use indicate a resulting improvement in access 
to affordable energy, a clear indication of EJ outcomes (Jessel, Sawyer, and 
Hernández 2019). An improved ability to use cooling in summer is an 
indication of CJ, as this is a method of coping with increased heat waves, 
particularly for older households (Jenkins 2018; Walker and Day 2012). 
Around 39.6%11 of participants experienced either reduced guilt around 
energy consumption, improved thermal comfort, or an improvement in 
energy affordability and/or energy use. These participants saved money on 
their energy bills or were better able to use the energy they needed after 
solar PV installation. This indicator signifies that residents with extra 
cooling needs—especially older residents—will be better able to afford to 
cool their homes with solar PV. As the effects of climate change progress, 

 
10 16.7% of these participants were also covered in indicator one.  
11 This figure refers to the total number of participants falling into at least one of these 
categories indicating achievement of both energy and climate justice—see Tables 2 and 5. 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [102] 
 

this will become increasingly important for the maintenance of climate 
justice. This is especially relevant in the City of Darebin, which is an inner-
city LGA experiencing the urban heat island effect due to a relatively high 
proportion of hard surfaces (Sun et al. 2019). 

In examining the above indicators together, 20.8% of programme 
participants both experienced EJ or CJ outcomes (indicators two and three) 
and were low-income or senior residents (indicator one).  

The major critique of SS as an effort to assist disadvantaged residents with 
solar PV is the “mission drift” it has encountered over years of operation. It 
began as a scheme specifically targeted to help seniors, low-income 
residents, and tenants access solar PV, but the ambitious mission of 
doubling solar PV capacity in Darebin in 2018 shifted focus away from this 
audience. Demand for the scheme generated by the broader group of 
residents meant that SS staff did not need to intentionally seek out new 
target audience participants, which made it difficult to consistently achieve 
socially and environmentally just outcomes. While the programme was able 
to achieve EJ and CJ for the low-income and senior participants it reached, 
the high proportion of high-income participants and low uptake by tenants 
meant these goals could only partially be realised.  

The two forms of justice can be addressed simultaneously through the 
provision of low-cost, low-carbon cooling to those who require assistance 
accessing it. However, this can be achieved only if assistance is properly 
targeted; as one interviewee noted, SS “really is a model that can be used for 
energy and climate justice. But it kind of has to be specifically done that 
way. It won’t just happen by accident”. In the absence of focused targeting, 
the energy-related “unjust socio-environmental conditions” (Swyngedouw 
and Heynen 2003, 901) that SS sought to address are likely to be 
maintained. 

While the distribution of solar panels need not be an inherently political 
process, the cost considerations and variations in access can make it so. 
Because of these costs, most residential solar programmes serve wealthy 
homeowners, marginally reinforcing their position in a hierarchy of wealth, 
as they save more money on their energy bills. Meanwhile, residents who 
are unable to access such schemes, especially tenants, miss out almost 
entirely. EJ operates with the potential to entrench energy poverty. 

Access to solar PV is characterised by “multiple power relations” 
(Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003, 901) at varying scales. Sufficient wealth, 
income, and home ownership enable some residents to access and install 
solar PV easily. The landlord–tenant relationship results in the inability of 
many tenants to access solar PV, meeting resistance from landlords. 



[103] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

Tenants settled in their desired locations in Australia generally rent because 
they cannot afford their own homes. An inability to access the money-
saving benefits of solar PV may further reinforce societal wealth 
inequalities, owing to their reduced ability to access cheap renewable 
energy.  

As with many renewable energy programmes, there is a question regarding 
the true sustainability of the SS scheme. In the wider transition towards 
renewable energy sources, schemes such as SS focus on offering supply-side 
interventions and do not address demand reduction. For example, the latter 
would involve improving the energy efficiency of each home or changing 
cultural norms to reduce energy use. Demand reduction, ironically, would 
even reduce the number of solar panels required and, thus, the resultant 
energy and resources required in each home. Installation of solar panels 
enables consumers to maintain their current lifestyles without making the 
significant demand-side changes necessary for combating climate change; 
this is why we term schemes like SS a form of “weak sustainability” 
(Neumayer 2010).  

In addition, while improving access to adequate energy is important for 
those households lacking access for technical or financial reasons, solar PV 
installation may increase their energy use, as they feel less financial pressure 
when using heating or cooling. This may be counterproductive in terms of 
true carbon reduction and sustainability, as households rarely derive 100% 
of their energy consumption from their solar panels. The electricity grid in 
Victoria is still predominately coal-powered, though the penetration of 
renewables is increasing and coal power plants are being retired early 
(OpenNEM 2021; AEMO 2022).  

5.1 Policy Recommendations 

Enabling access to home energy-efficiency upgrades may be a stronger 
sustainability measure than rooftop solar PV for low-income and senior 
households. Energy-efficiency upgrades will lower energy consumption 
while increasing climate resilience, especially for older residents, as they will 
improve thermal comfort (Williamson et al. 2022). Providing relatively 
simple energy-efficiency upgrades, such as insulation, highly efficient 
reverse cycle air conditioners, or hot water heat pumps through a similar 
financial mechanism could result in a similar financial outgoing for the local 
council while improving thermal comfort for residents and reducing stress 
on the electricity grid. Addressing low uptake by renters requires the 
implementation of minimum energy-efficiency standards, which would 
effectively make energy-efficiency upgrades mandatory on homes falling 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [104] 
 

below the minimum standard (Lang et al. 2022). Standards are set at the 
state rather than the local level in Australia, meaning that it is outside the 
scope of the local council’s abilities.  

6. CONCLUSION 

We set out to determine the degree to which CJ and EJ are addressed 
through the SS programme developed and operated by a local council in 
Melbourne, and whether the programme reduces or reinforces inequality in 
access to solar PV. This is a question rooted in the political ecology of 
energy supply and consumption and provides historical lessons as well, 
given that this form of subsidy was developed quite early by this progressive 
council. 

The findings reveal that EJ and CJ outcomes were achieved for 39.6% of 
the low-income and senior residents in the participant sample population or 
slightly less than half of the participants. This finding speaks to an 
institutional “mission drift” through the life of the SS programme, as it 
expanded its eligibility criteria.  

We also found that programme participants surveyed were primarily 
motivated to install solar PV for environmental rather than financial 
reasons. Most participants were able to meet their household expenses, 
including energy consumption, without great difficulty. As most 
participants had sufficient financial capacity to meet their energy needs 
before obtaining solar PV, it does not appear that these participants meet 
the criteria for households suffering from energy injustice or climate 
injustice.  

The majority of SS participants were homeowners living in detached, single-
family homes, and those who rent their homes have been largely left out of 
the programme. It is well-known that tenants are a particularly difficult 
cohort to reach for energy-related programmes (Bird and Hernández 2012). 
Landlords rarely take up energy upgrades on their rented properties despite 
the availability of generous incentives, suggesting a need for stronger energy 
regulation—a measure beyond the remit of local government (Law, 
Meiklejohn, and Mountjoy 2015). Additionally, the inability of solar PV 
costs to be passed on to tenants through SS is a potential barrier to reaching 
more tenants.  

In the absence of assistance through a programme such as SS, the groups 
that are least likely to be able to access solar power are tenants, older 
residents, and those on low incomes. SS attempts to address these 
inequalities by targeting these groups; however, in 2018 and 2019, the 
programme did not do this as actively as in other years. The council’s goal 



[105] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

of doubling solar PV capacity in the City of Darebin issued in 2017 led to 
an overwhelming demand from more affluent residents. SS has the 
potential to reinforce inequality because higher-income residents became 
the major scheme recipients. Future rounds of the programme should 
consider limiting eligibility to only those target residents requiring financial 
assistance, which means investing resources to verify their eligibility. 
Indeed, in 2022, programme eligibility was limited to “disadvantaged people 
and discriminated communities”, with a household income of less than 
US$67,500 per year (Darebin City Council 2022b; 2022a). Limiting the scale 
of the programme may free up funds and staff capacity to actively target 
residents.  

Renewable energy scheme providers must be perceived as trustworthy. This 
was the case for this council, which helped educate residents about the 
benefits of solar power and their eligibility, providing them with assistance 
with navigating the installation process. In Victoria, the council as the 
scheme provider has the legal ability to implement the mechanism to enable 
resident repayments for solar PV through council rates. Darebin is a 
progressive council and has innovated this programme as an exemplar for 
other governments. As action in this area at the state and federal levels 
continues to lag, the local council has taken up the challenge of delivering a 
targeted programme.  

In conclusion, the SS programme did not wholly reinforce inequality in 
access to renewable energy. It enabled access for certain residents who 
would have otherwise been unable to install solar panels. However, 
inequalities were not addressed adequately. The implication is that this type 
of programme cannot fully address inequality in access to energy while also 
serving high-income or wealthy homeowners, who displace target audience 
residents, as what has occurred within the scheme during the years of 
expansion to all residents. As there is clear potential to use programmes 
such as SS to address the justice concerns of low-income, tenants, and 
senior households, if programmes are targeted, solar energy schemes may 
be useful but only with a clear focus on those who really need this source of 
energy. 

Ethics Statement: I hereby confirm that this study complies with 
requirements of ethical approvals from the institutional ethics committee 
for the conduct of this research.  

Data Availability statement: The data used to support this research is not 
available since no means of publicly storing data are available to the author. 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [106] 
 

Conflict of Interest Statement: No potential conflict of interest was 
reported by the author. 

REFERENCES 

Ashby, Kira, Jennifer Smith, Sea Rotmann, Luis Mundaca, Joseph Reyes, Aimee 
Ambrose, Sheri Borrelli, and Mansi Talwar. 2020. “Who Are Hard-to-Reach 
Energy Users? Segments, Barriers and Approaches to Engage Them.” In 2020 
ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Efficiency: The Core of a Clean 
Energy Future, 1–12. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy Efficient 
Economy. https://doi.org/10.47568/3CP103   

AEMO. 2022. “2022 Integrated System Plan for the National Electricity Market.” 
Melbourne: Australian Energy Market Operator. https://aemo.com.au/-
/media/files/major-publications/isp/2022/2022-documents/2022-integrated-
system-plan-isp.pdf?la=en.  

Australian Government Productivity Commission. 2019. “Vulnerable Private 
Renters: Evidence and Options.” Canberra: Productivity Commission. 
https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/renters/private-renters.docx    

Batterbury, Simon PJ. 2010. “Adaptive Learning – a Think-Tank on Preparedness 
for Climate Change Adaptation in Local and State Planning in Victoria.” 
Melbourne School of Land and Environment. 
https://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/Adaptive%2520learning%2
520think%2520tank%2520180111_0.pdf    

Bickerstaff, Karen, Gordon Walker, and Harriet Bulkeley. 2013a. Energy Justice in a 
Changing Climate: Social Equity and Low-Carbon Energy. Edited by K Bickerstaff, G 
Walker, and H Bulkeley. London: Zed Books. 
https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350219908   

———. 2013b. “Introduction: Making Sense of Energy Justice.” In Energy Justice in 
a Changing Climate: Social Equity and Low-Carbon Energy, edited by K Bickerstaff, G 
Walker, and H Bulkeley, 1–13. London: Zed Books. 

Bird, Stephen, and Diana Hernández. 2012. “Policy Options for the Split Incentive: 
Increasing Energy Efficiency for Low-Income Renters.” Energy Policy 48: 506–514. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.053.   

Boardman, Brenda. 1993. “Opportunities and Constraints Posed by Fuel Poverty 
on Policies to Reduce the Greenhouse Effect in Britain.” Applied Energy 44 (2): 
185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(93)90061-S.    

———. 2012. “Fuel Poverty Synthesis: Lessons Learnt, Actions Needed.” Energy 
Policy 49: 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.035.  

Bridge, Gavin, and Ludger Gailing. 2020. “New Energy Spaces: Towards a 
Geographical Political Economy of Energy Transition.” Environment and Planning A 
52 (6): 1037–1050. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20939570.  

Broto, Vanesa Castán, and Harriet Bulkeley. 2013. “A Survey of Urban Climate 
Change Experiments in 100 Cities.” Global Environmental Change 23 (1): 92–102. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005.  

https://doi.org/10.47568/3CP103
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2022/2022-documents/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp.pdf?la=en
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2022/2022-documents/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp.pdf?la=en
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2022/2022-documents/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp.pdf?la=en
https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/renters/private-renters.docx
https://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/Adaptive%2520learning%2520think%2520tank%2520180111_0.pdf
https://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/Adaptive%2520learning%2520think%2520tank%2520180111_0.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350219908
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.053
https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(93)90061-S
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.035
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20939570
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005


[107] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

Browne, Bill, and Noah Schultz-Byard. 2021. “Something New under the Sun: 
Solar PV on South Australian Rentals.” Canberra: The Australia Institute. 
https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/something-new-under-the-sun/.  

Bryman, Alan. 2012. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Bureau of Meteorology. 2023. “Annual Climate Summary for Greater Melbourne.” 
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology. 2022. 
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/vic/melbourne.shtml.  

Carley, Sanya, and David M. Konisky. 2020. “The Justice and Equity Implications 
of the Clean Energy Transition.” Nature Energy 5 (8): 569–577. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6.    

City of Darebin. 2018. “Darebin Solar Saver and Bulk Buy Frequently Asked 
Questions.” Preston: VIC. http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/-
/media/cityofdarebin/Files/Darebin-
Living/CaringfortheEnvironment/EnergyandClimate/SolarPrograms/FAQSolarSa
verBulkBuyNEWJuly2018.ashx?la=en.  

Clean Energy Council. 2022. “Clean Energy Australia Report 2022.” Melbourne: 
VIC. 
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/clean-
energy-australia/clean-energy-australia-report-2022.pdf.  

Council Action in the Climate Emergency. n.d. “History of Climate Emergency 
Action by Councils.” Accessed April 14, 2021. 
https://www.caceonline.org/history.html.  

Crowley, Kate. 2017. “Up and down with Climate Politics 2013–2016: The Repeal 
of Carbon Pricing in Australia.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 8 
(3): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.458. 

Darebin City Council. 2015. “Minutes of the Council Meeting Held on Monday 16 
February 2015.” Darebin City Council. Accessed 13 April 2023. 
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-
performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-
agendas-and-minutes  

———. 2016a. “Appendix A, Council Meeting 19 September 2016.” Darebin: 
Darebin City Council. Accessed 13 April 2023. 
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-
performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-
agendas-and-minutes  

———. 2016b. “City of Darebin Solar $aver Program Householder Agreement.” 
Darebin: Darebin City Council. Accessed 13 April 2023. 
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-
performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-
agendas-and-minutes.  

———. 2017a. “Appendix C, Meeting Minutes 18 September 2017: Solar Saver 
Program 2017 – 2019 (item 1501). Darebin: Darebin City Council.  Accessed 13 

https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/something-new-under-the-sun/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/vic/melbourne.shtml
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6
http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/-/media/cityofdarebin/Files/Darebin-Living/CaringfortheEnvironment/EnergyandClimate/SolarPrograms/FAQSolarSaverBulkBuyNEWJuly2018.ashx?la=en
http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/-/media/cityofdarebin/Files/Darebin-Living/CaringfortheEnvironment/EnergyandClimate/SolarPrograms/FAQSolarSaverBulkBuyNEWJuly2018.ashx?la=en
http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/-/media/cityofdarebin/Files/Darebin-Living/CaringfortheEnvironment/EnergyandClimate/SolarPrograms/FAQSolarSaverBulkBuyNEWJuly2018.ashx?la=en
http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/-/media/cityofdarebin/Files/Darebin-Living/CaringfortheEnvironment/EnergyandClimate/SolarPrograms/FAQSolarSaverBulkBuyNEWJuly2018.ashx?la=en
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/clean-energy-australia/clean-energy-australia-report-2022.pdf
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/clean-energy-australia/clean-energy-australia-report-2022.pdf
https://www.caceonline.org/history.html
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [108] 
 

April 2023. https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-
and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-
agendas-and-minutes  

———. 2017b. “Darebin Climate Emergency Plan 2017-2022.” Darebin: Darebin 
City Council. Accessed 13 April 2023. https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/-
/media/council/files/about-council/councillors-and-meetings/governance-and-
transparency/council-policies-and-
strategies/darebinclimateemergencyplan20172022pdf.ashx  

———. 2018a. “Appendix B, Council Meeting 30 April 2018.” Darebin: Darebin 
City Council. Accessed 13 April 2023. https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-
Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-
Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes  

———. 2018b. “Proposal to Declare and Levy a Special Charge for the Solar Saver 
Scheme.” Darebin: Darebin City Council. Accessed 13 April 2023. 
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-
performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-
agendas-and-minutes  

———. 2019a. “Appendix B, Council Meeting 18 March 2019.” Darebin: Darebin 
City Council. Accessed 13 April 2023. https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-
Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-
Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes  

———. 2019b. “Appendix B, Council Meeting 25 February 2019.” Darebin: 
Darebin City Council. Accessed 13 April 2023. 
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-
performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-
agendas-and-minutes   

———. 2019c. “Appendix B, Council Meeting 4 February 2019.” Darebin: 
Darebin City Council. Accessed 13 April 2023. 
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-
performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-
agendas-and-minutes   

———. 2020. “Solar Saver: Is My Household Eligible for the Rates Stream?” 
Darebin: Darebin City Council. http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Darebin-
Living/Caring-for-the-environment/EnergyClimate.   

———. 2022a. “Solar Saver.” Darebin: Darebin City Council. 
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/solar.  

———. 2022b. “Solar Saver Rates Program.” Darebin: Darebin City Council. 
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/waste-and-environment/sustainability/energy-
and-climate/solar-saver/solar-savers-rates-program.  

Day, Rosie, Gordon Walker, and Neil Simcock. 2016. “Conceptualising Energy Use 
and Energy Poverty Using a Capabilities Framework.” Energy Policy 93: 255–264. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.019.  

https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/-/media/council/files/about-council/councillors-and-meetings/governance-and-transparency/council-policies-and-strategies/darebinclimateemergencyplan20172022pdf.ashx
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/-/media/council/files/about-council/councillors-and-meetings/governance-and-transparency/council-policies-and-strategies/darebinclimateemergencyplan20172022pdf.ashx
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/-/media/council/files/about-council/councillors-and-meetings/governance-and-transparency/council-policies-and-strategies/darebinclimateemergencyplan20172022pdf.ashx
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/-/media/council/files/about-council/councillors-and-meetings/governance-and-transparency/council-policies-and-strategies/darebinclimateemergencyplan20172022pdf.ashx
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Council-structure-and-performance/Council-and-Committee-Meetings/Council-meetings/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes
http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Darebin-Living/Caring-for-the-environment/EnergyClimate
http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Darebin-Living/Caring-for-the-environment/EnergyClimate
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/solar
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/waste-and-environment/sustainability/energy-and-climate/solar-saver/solar-savers-rates-program
https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/waste-and-environment/sustainability/energy-and-climate/solar-saver/solar-savers-rates-program
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.019


[109] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action. n.d. “Solar Savers.” Accessed April 21, 
2022. https://eaga.com.au/projects/solar-savers/.  

Forsyth, Tim. 2014. “Climate Justice Is Not Just Ice.” Geoforum 54: 230–232. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.008.  

Hadfield, Paris, and Nicole Cook. 2019. “Financing the Low-Carbon City: Can 
Local Government Leverage Public Finance to Facilitate Equitable 
Decarbonisation?” Urban Policy and Research 37 (1): 13–29. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2017.1421532.  

Heynen, Nik. 2014. “Urban Political Ecology I: The Urban Century.” Progress in 
Human Geography 38 (4): 598–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513500443.  

Jenkins, Kirsten. 2018. “Setting Energy Justice Apart from the Crowd: Lessons 
from Environmental and Climate Justice.” Energy Research and Social Science 39: 117–
121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.015.  

Jenkins, Kirsten, Darren McCauley, Raphael Heffron, Hannes Stephan, and Robert 
Rehner. 2016. “Energy Justice: A Conceptual Review.” Energy Research and Social 
Science 11: 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004.  

Jessel, Sonal, Samantha Sawyer, and Diana Hernández. 2019. “Energy, Poverty, and 
Health in Climate Change: A Comprehensive Review of an Emerging Literature.” 
Frontiers in Public Health 7 (357): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00357.  

Lang, M, R Lane, K Zhao, and R Raven. 2022. “Energy Efficiency in the Private 
Rental Sector in Victoria, Australia: When and Why Do Small-Scale Private 
Landlords Retrofit?” Energy Research & Social Science 88 (June 2022): 1–13. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102533.  

Law, Rob, David Meiklejohn, and Gavin Mountjoy. 2015. Investigating Rates 
Mechanisms: Adaptation Mechanisms for Vulnerable Low Income and Rental 
Households. Melbourne, Victoria: Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action. 

Senator the Hon Jenny McAllister. 2022. “Stronger Action on Climate Change.” 
Media Release. 2022. Accessed 17 April 2023. 
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/mcallister/media-
releases/stronger-action-climate-change.  

McDonald, Matt. 2015. “Climate Security and Economic Security: The Limits to 
Climate Change Action in Australia?” International Politics 52 (4): 484–501. 
https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.5.  

McKendry, Corina. 2016. “Cities and the Challenge of Multiscalar Climate Justice: 
Climate Governance and Social Equity in Chicago, Birmingham, and Vancouver.” 
Local Environment 21 (11): 1354–1371. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1116064.  

Meiklejohn, David, Sarah Bekessy, Susie Moloney, and Alberto Bezama. 2018. 
“Shifting Practices: How the Rise of Rooftop Solar PV has Changed Local 
Government Community Engagement.” Cogent Environmental Science 4 (1): 1–14. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2018.1481584.  

https://eaga.com.au/projects/solar-savers/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.008
https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2017.1421532
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513500443
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00357
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102533
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/mcallister/media-releases/stronger-action-climate-change
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/mcallister/media-releases/stronger-action-climate-change
https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.5
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1116064
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2018.1481584


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [110] 
 

Mey, Franziska, Mark Diesendorf, and Iain MacGill. 2016. “Can Local 
Government Play a Greater Role for Community Renewable Energy? A Case Study 
from Australia.” Energy Research and Social Science 21: 33–43. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.019.  

Neumayer, Eric. 2010. “Sustainable Development: Conceptual, Ethical and 
Paradigmatic Issues.” In Weak versus Strong Sustainability, 8–48. Gloucestershire: 
Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805438.00010.  

OpenNEM. 2021. “OpenNEM.” OpenNEM. 2021. Accessed 25 May 2021. 
https://opennem.org.au/energy/vic1/?range=7d&interval=30m.  

Schlosberg, David. 2004. “Reconceiving Environmental Justice: Global Movements 
and Political Theories.” Environmental Politics 13 (3): 517–540. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229025.  

———. 2013. “Theorising Environmental Justice: The Expanding Sphere of a 
Discourse.” Environmental Politics 22 (1): 37–55. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755387.  

Schlosberg, David, and Lisette B Collins. 2014. “From Environmental to Climate 
Justice: Climate Change and the Discourse of Environmental Justice.” Wiley 
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5 (3): 359–374. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.275.  

Services Australia. 2020. “Pensioner Concession Card: Who Can Get a Card.” 
2020. Date accesed 25 May 2020. 
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/pensioner-
concession-card/who-can-get-card#a2.  

Shepard, Peggy M, and Cecil Corbin-Mark. 2009. “Climate Justice.” Environmental 
Justice 2 (4): 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1089=env.2009.2402.  

Solar Savers. 2019. “About Solar Savers.” https://solarsavers.org.au/about-solar-
savers/.   

Solar Victoria. 2021a. “Am I Eligible?” https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/solar-panel-
rebate#am-i-eligible.  

———. 2021b. “FAQs: Solar for Rental Properties.” 
https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/solar-rental-properties-0.  

———. 2021c. “Solar Rebates.” https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/solar-rebates. 

Sovacool, Benjamin K, Matthew M Lipson, and Rose Chard. 2019. “Temporality, 
Vulnerability, and Energy Justice in Household Low Carbon Innovations.” Energy 
Policy 128: 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.010.  

Sun, C, J Hurley, M Amati, J Arundel, A Saunders, B Boruff, and P Caccetta. 2019. 
Urban Vegetation, Urban Heat Islands and Heat Vulnerability Assessment in 
Melbourne, 2018. Melbourne: Clean Air and Landscapes Hub.  

Swyngedouw, Erik, and N Heynen. 2003. “Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the 
Politics of Scale.” Antipode 35 (5): 898–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8330.2003.00364.x  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.019
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805438.00010
https://opennem.org.au/energy/vic1/?range=7d&interval=30m
https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229025
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755387
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.275
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/pensioner-concession-card/who-can-get-card#a2
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/pensioner-concession-card/who-can-get-card#a2
https://doi.org/10.1089=env.2009.2402
https://solarsavers.org.au/about-solar-savers/
https://solarsavers.org.au/about-solar-savers/
https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/solar-panel-rebate#am-i-eligible
https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/solar-panel-rebate#am-i-eligible
https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/solar-rental-properties-0
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.010
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2003.00364.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2003.00364.x


[111] Tice and Batterbury 

 

 

 

Hon Angus Taylor MP. 2021. “Australia’s Plan to Reach Our Net Zero Target by 
2050.” Media Release. 2021. Accessed 17 April 2023. 
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/taylor/media-releases/australias-
plan-reach-our-net-zero-target-2050   

Uffelen, Nynke van. 2022. “Revisiting Recognition in Energy Justice.” Energy 
Research and Social Science 92 (July): 102764. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102764   

UN Energy. 2021. Theme Report on Enabling SDGs through Inclusive, Just Energy 
Transitions: Towards the Achievement of SDG 7 and Net-Zero Emissions. New York: 
United Nations.  

Toovey, Nathan, and Nathan Malin. 2016. Solar PV for Low Income Households: 
Directions Paper - Building the Business Case for Action. Melbourne: Urban Elements & 
Practice Pty Ltd.  

Waitt, Gordon, and Theresa Harada. 2019. “Space of Energy Well‐being: Social 
Housing Tenants’ Everyday Experiences of Fuel Poverty.” Transactions of the Institute 
of British Geographers 44 (4): 794–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12320    

Walker, Gordon, and Rosie Day. 2012. “Fuel Poverty as Injustice: Integrating 
Distribution, Recognition and Procedure in the Struggle for Affordable Warmth.” 
Energy Policy 49: 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.044   

Williamson, T, V Soebarto, H Bennetts, LA Martina, D Pisaniello, A Hansen, R 
Visvanathan, A Carre, and J van Hoof. 2022. “Assessing Human Resilience: A 
Study of Thermal Comfort, Well-Being and Health of Older People.” In Routledge 
Handbook of Resilient Thermal Comfort, 108–127. London: Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003244929-10   

Wrigley, Kelseigh. 2023. “Compare Cheapest Electricity Prices in Victoria.” Canstar 
Blue, March 6, 2023. https://www.canstarblue.com.au/electricity/cheapest-
electricity-prices-victoria/  

https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/taylor/media-releases/australias-plan-reach-our-net-zero-target-2050
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/taylor/media-releases/australias-plan-reach-our-net-zero-target-2050
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102764
https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12320
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.044
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003244929-10
https://www.canstarblue.com.au/electricity/cheapest-electricity-prices-victoria/
https://www.canstarblue.com.au/electricity/cheapest-electricity-prices-victoria/

