This is actually very regressive policy because it only rewards people who 1) own their own home and 2) can afford a significant capital investment. And under current retail rate structures it shifts the burden of maintaining the grid onto those who can't afford to make these investments and who will end up seeing there rates rise unless the cost of grid connectivity is increased.

It's also economically questionable because it's simply much cheaper to build and manage a smaller number of large batteries then thousands of home batteries.

I understand why these schemes are politically attractive; people like to own their own stuff. But there is a very real chance this increases the cost of energy here.

I'm curious how you see this potentially increasing the cost of energy? Why can't we do both large systems and small distributed systems?

I see the following benefits:

1. Stabilises the grid

2. Smooths peak demands. Check the Price and Demand graph here: https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-...

3. Increases supply -> energy prices decrease?

4. Accelerated move away from coal generation and towards renewables.

5. Job creation (solar and storage installation)

Drawbacks:

1. Renters, lower income houses and apartment dwellers don't have access the subsidies

2. Exposure to dodgy installers and systems just like we saw with the Australia solar scheme.