Not the working-poor. Not renters.

By rebate you mean: a wealth transfer from tax payers to those who need it least, those who can afford a battery, those who aren’t renting.

▲

viraptor 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Not quite. There's an income limit on that rebate. I can't get it.

▲

shushpanchik 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not sure what renting has to do with this? Renters in Australia do not install batteries/panels, it's landlord's business.

If landlord has batteries/panels installed, chances are rent would be a bit higher. Renter is free to choose a place with lower energy bills by paying that premium, so these subsidies definitely could benefit the renters.

	▲	beAbU 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> it's landlord's business This is the problem though. Landlords are rarely incentivised to enhance a property by installing solar+batteries on it, as they don't live there to reap the benefits. Solar still takes a couple of years to give an ROI, so I can't see how a landlord will agree to do this on an existing property. If a property's monthly rent is higher because it has solar installed, what is the benefit to the tenant? Sure they get cheaper electricity, but they pay more rent, so it balances out. Tenants won't pay for the installation, as it's a permanent improvement on a property that they don't own. I live in a country with an order of magnitude less sun (Ireland), but there is a big solar boom going on here now, and I'm missing out on the government subsidies (which ended recently) because I'm renting and I can't convince a landlord to put €10k+ up to install a solar system for very little benefit.