Peter Hannam quoted me in RenewEconomy on Friday, saying I expect there are hundreds of thousands of solar and battery systems out there that aren’t optimally installed or configured, some of them carrying real potential for dangerous outcomes.
He ran that alongside what Chris Bowen had told parliament two days earlier, when Dan Tehan asked whether the minister could guarantee every subsidised battery had been installed safely and to standard. Bowen’s answer was that the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme is “one of the world’s most rigorous schemes for compliance,” and that it had received 315 complaints against 800,000 installations in the past year. That’s 0.04 per cent.
I want to show my working because “hundreds of thousands” isn’t a number I pulled out of my arse to sound alarming. If anything, it’s conservative compared to what you get from multiplying out the Clean Energy Regulator’s own inspection data.
A complaint rate measures complaints, not compliance
Bowen’s 0.04% tells you how many people rang up to complain. I’m not sure about you, but one of the last places I’m gonna call if I fall out with a solar retailer is the Clean Energy Regulator. That number tells you nothing about how many systems are broken, badly installed, poorly designed, misconfigured, or underperforming.
Luckily, the regulator has a second number. The CER conducts its own physical inspections of battery installations, separate from the complaints line, and publishes the results. As of 30 June 2026, it had inspected 3,425 systems and checked over 285,000 individual items against them. Of the 3,425 inspected and roughly 2,640 rated so far: 62.28 per cent of installations were rated substandard, which the CER defines as breaching at least one clause of an Australian Standard or industry guideline while still being safe to leave running, and a further 0.76 per cent were rated outright unsafe.
To be fair to the installers, the biggest share of the substandard findings is labelling: missing warning labels at the switchboard, backed-up circuits not marked, no emergency services sticker on the meter box. The wiring faults, misconfigured RCDs, cables without proper mechanical or fire protection, and undersized overcurrent protection are the smaller share.
Doing the maths Bowen didn’t
Bowen told the House that more than 530,000 batteries have gone in under the Cheaper Home Batteries program. Apply the regulator’s own inspection rate to that population and you get roughly 330,000 systems that are technically non-compliant and around 4,000 that are unsafe.
That’s where “hundreds of thousands” comes from: the CER’s own audit percentage, multiplied by the CER’s own installation count.
It indicates there are thousands of systems the regulator would classify as an immediate or developing risk to people or property, sitting in Australian homes right now.
The stuff that will never even get inspected
The CER’s substandard and unsafe categories cover compliance with wiring rules. They say nothing about the much bigger bucket of batteries that are technically safe, technically compliant, and still doing a mediocre job for the person who paid for them. Some examples off the top of my head, based on what folks tell me every week:
- Undersized inverters, so large loads always pull from the grid.
- Current transformers in the wrong place, so the battery isn’t offsetting the loads it’s supposed to.
- Batteries stuck in full sun or a hot garage, derating in the short term and losing capacity for good over a few summers.
- Batteries with no heater crippled on a cold Adelaide or Canberra morning in winter.
- No configuration to import cheap or free grid power on a low solar day and through winter.
- No export is configured for big batteries, even though the batteries’ spare capacity could feed the grid for cash instead of sitting idle.
- Big loads like hot water left to drain the battery instead of being scheduled around it.
- An EV charger that can’t talk to the battery, or is not wired upstream of it, draining the battery instead of using a cheap EV tariff.
- Reserve set too high, so a chunk of paid-for capacity just sits idle.
- No enrolment in a battery-friendly plan, which is pure lost revenue every single day.
- Warranted degradation that will bite in a few years on the cheaper cells, which the owner has absolutely no way of monitoring.
Every one of those is a battery underperforming for a customer. Multiply that across half a million systems, and the gap between what the government thinks it delivered and what actually got installed is enormous.
What needs to happen
I don’t want a Senate inquiry that files a report in eighteen months. I want a $300 inspection, funded by a subsidy that paid up to $18,000 per system when the scheme launched and still pays several thousand dollars per system today.
As a priority, I want to catch that unsafe 0.76 per cent before it becomes a tragedy, and also catch poor design and configuration, so that homeowners get the savings they deserve and Aussie taxpayers get maximum value from their bloody generous $7 billion investment in battery rebates.
About Finn Peacock
RSS - Posts
A lot of the substandard measures you mentioned are customisable by the battery owner themselves with basic knowledge of their app.
100% agree – but I speak with hundreds of battery owners, and now we are in the mass adoption phase, perhaps 20% of them are confident going into an app and doing this stuff – it is the installer’s responsibility to do it for them IMO. Also, most of the apps are so bad that they make this very confusing.
I spoke to a lady last week, perplexed as to why her bill was higher in winter when she had a big battery and low consumption. She hadn’t been shown how to use the app – and had no idea her 7kW system couldn’t fill her 15 kWh battery in winter. She also thought she had an 11kWh battery (it was 11kW, 15 kWh). There was zero possibility she could navigate to the menu and configure a top-up charge on a low daytime tariff on her own. This kind of thing is *very* common.
While don’t disagree with your logic here, I think very few people genuinely fall into the category of being helpless when it comes to configuring a system via its app. I’d argue that most people have someone close who could help set up their system for them.
Additionally with retailers constantly changing rates, tariffs and plans, it’s asking too much of installers to perpetually monitor and adjust customers’ settings. There’s also a degree of personal responsibility here. Many consumers simply don’t think about their system until they receive an exorbitant electricity bill.
That said, where a customer specifically asks for help navigating the app before or during installation, I agree installers should make best efforts to ensure they’re properly supported. Customers should be shown how to configure their system based on their usage and the best information available at the time.
Beyond that, I think ongoing optimisation is ultimately the customer’s responsibility.
Re: “it is the installer’s responsibility to do it for them IMO. ”
At the time of installation, maybe. But surely the retailer who designed and sold the system should be the responsible body.
In my experience, installers install what is sold. Once it’s up and running, yes, thay can help a novice user, but only at the time of install.
The installer isn’t going to help the customer down the track, to go through power bills and specific app settings to customize the installation for their power usage patterns.
That should be the retailers’ job.
That’s IF the customer can actually get to communicate with the retailer’s support team!
Apologies. I was careless with my words. SQ is almost all installers who also sell the systems. When I say ‘Installer’, I mean the entity that sold the system.
The tricky thing here is not becoming part of a scare campaign, like the infamous ‘pink batts’ nonsense after the GFC. The first casualty of politics is always truth.
So a not unlikely scenario is the various conservative forces in the country winning the next election and looking for every pretense to shut down renewables-focused development. We see that already happening in Queensland at the State level.
I think SQ provides excellent expertise for these issues. But to become part of the wider political debate is I think dangerous, and could be very counter-productive to SQ’s own aims.
I think it’s the reverse of what you’re describing.
I stay out of politics precisely by sticking to the facts on safety, performance and where taxpayer subsidy money goes. If I started worrying about which side might use a particular finding, I’d have to filter what I report based on political calculus instead of evidence.
I don’t have a view on who wins the next election or on renewables policy generally. I have a view on whether a battery install meets safety standards and does what it was sold to do.
If substandard installs end up as ammunition in a political fight, that’s on whoever picks them up and uses them that way.
The truth is all we’ve got in this life.
“I don’t have a view on who wins the next election or on renewables policy generally.”
Maybe you should if you’re going to be writing posts like this that WILL end up being cherry picked out of context and weaponised politically.
I can already see that “62%” Number being used in the next IPA hit piece/becoming a party talking point.
You’re asking me to pre-filter what gets published based on a guess about which side might grab it and how. Every safety stat in every industry can be weaponised by somebody. If that’s the test for publishing, nothing on safety or performance ever runs, and the people happy about that are the shonks.
No not really that. I understood SQ to have two broad missions. One is to ensure people get the best quality and best value solar (and now battery and EV charging) setup they can. But also underlying that is a broader mission to support the renewable transition itself?
Some politicians will use the former to undermine the latter, if given a chance. Maybe it’s about asking for a right of input or reply if you’re going to be quoted, to stress both aspects of the SQ mission? And/or to even align more with Saul Griffith’s work, which is much more about the second goal? Not necessarily organisationally, but to look to reinforce each other’s message?
I should clarify I work with politicians for a living, and have seen firsthand how these things often play out. In this case you were quoted, not much you can do about that, and I absolutely agree it’s always best to get the truth out there. You also have little control (none of us do) over what politicians do with things.
But I’m seeing, and Queensland is the perfect case, a real red meat desire from opponents of renewable energy to up the ante and throw major disruption and obstruction in its way. And globally that shift is across many countries.
There’s no easy answer as to how to best approach that, when you have visibility in broad public discussions. But it does pay to be aware of and not naive about how things get used, I think. I’ve seen very good people being used as fodder for things they absolutely don’t believe in. Politics is ruthless and dirty.
So what is your solution Nick? Ignore the facts in case the govt is criticised?
I don’t know that there is an easy solution. But I do think there’s a definite shift in the politics, forces are mobilising within the status quo to make a last-gasp attempt to obstruct the renewables transition.
Just look at the swell in support for populist parties in the entire Anglo world right now, who all use renewables as a focal point of resistance. Queensland has already more or less shut down the momentum for the transition, it’s not theoretical.
The fact ‘batteries have been installed in a dodgy way’ is already a missile used in the federal parliament is a danger signal, I think.
Nick,
Trumpian politics fabricates its own factoids, whether our truthfulness supplies material for obfuscation or not, I submit. T’ain’t worth fussing over. Fervent delusion maintains a death-grip until fossil extinction.
Consider: Texas, the biggest OIL state, has now surpassed climatically aware California in renewables deployment – because it’s cheaper, so the profits are greater. And Gina’s mines in WA are maxing solar deployment, because it’s so much cheaper than trucking fossil fuel, and paying its escalating cost. OK, in Queensland, their message is still pro-fossil, to extend the life of their fossil interests there. In short, it’s all about the money.
That being the corporate case, and the populace being slavishly habit bound until fuel prices bite hard, it is ultimately free energy and fuel scarcity which inexorably accelerate us toward civilisational survival despite our willfully ignorant climate blindness.
Bum draggers can’t stop exponential acceleration.
Be fair to Nick. He is pointing out the reality: what you consider as truth telling will always be taken out of context by opponents for their political ends.
In situations you know you have been quoted out of context, you should clarify and provide the full explanation where possible.
As an advocate of renewable energy future, and in a small way as a stakeholder (your integrity to remind readers of Origin Energy ownership is appreciated), Solarquotes is unavoidable to be part of the political debate.
Nick: – “So a not unlikely scenario is the various conservative forces in the country winning the next election and looking for every pretense to shut down renewables-focused development.”
I wonder whether temperature extremes this coming summer will give pause to voters considering voting for climate denying “conservative forces.”
Climate Brink dashboard suggests:
https://dashboard.theclimatebrink.com/#global
On 4 Jan 2020, Penrith Lakes, NSW, experienced a record maximum temperature of 48.9 °C. On that day, Penrith was officially the hottest place on Earth and set a new record for the Sydney basin.
https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/nsw/archive/202001.sydney.shtml#recordsTmaxDailyHigh
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if maximum temperature records are comprehensively exceeded in many locations in Australia this summer.
Try surviving exposure to 50+ °C outdoors.
Hi Geoff.
I don’t think so. The supporters you mention say that climate has always changed, this is just a blip.
They simply crank up the AC and blame the Guv’mint and the renewables roll-out for the high power prices they are paying.
But when it comes to petrol prices… All of a sudden we are buying me EVs than ICE cars.
Jeff: – “The supporters you mention say that climate has always changed, this is just a blip.”
Notable 50 °C Records:
Onslow, WA: 50.7 °C on 13 Jan 2022;
Oodnadatta, SA: 50.7 °C on 2 Jan 1960;
Port Augusta, SA: 50.0 °C on 30 Jan 2026;
I’d suggest when some suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide & Perth start experiencing 50 °C extreme heat days, & on increasingly more frequent occasions, then that’s more than “just a blip.”
Jeff: – “They simply crank up the AC and blame the Guv’mint…”
Food crops won’t survive in 50 °C heat; nor will standard livestock. They won’t have A/C to protect them.
So, even if one has access to an A/C that can function effectively with an outdoor air temperature of 50+ °C, and one has reliable, affordable electricity to run one’s A/C, will one have any food to eat in one’s pantry or fridge?
https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/webform/make_a_submission_hvo_north_and/80186/Geoff_Miell%27s_Additional_Submission-HVO.pdf
Plug in solar and batteries are coming next year. No installer required. That should see prices drop. Just pick up a system at Bunnings like I did last year with my plug and play heat pump hot water system which a year later is going very well supplying a family of five. It uses so little power, about 250W when running, I have it plugged into our battery backed up circuit.
Interesting.
I can understand plug and play for power, but unless it has it’s own tap, how does it connect to the water?
Isn’t a plumber required to connect anything, or even do any work on plumbing fixtures?
Depends on the circumstances. In my case I was replacing an old HWS so the piping was already in place. So all I had to do was screw the hot and cold water hoses onto the hot and cold water pipes which I would not describe as plumbing work since it requires no skill.
Modern methods of hooking up pipes often with flexible hoses has made these sorts of jobs much simpler and easier than it was using the old methods.
Hi David,
I’m an electrician but I’ve talked to enough statutory regulators to know that there’s things I don’t know about plumbing.
What I can tell you is a new hot water service needs appropriately routed drains, new reverse flow, pressure limiting & pressure relief valve(s) along with tempering and pipe lagging to be legal.
These standards are designed to prevent vulnerable people being scalded and water-borne diseases being spread through the mains.
It’s not about skill, it’s about being aware of the risks.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/hot-water-valve-drainage/
So who has the skills and the integrity to inspect my solar/battery system? And at what price?
Hi Paul,
The CER pays for inspections but the inspectors I know are a bit cagey about rates, other than complaining the compensation paid for appointments that don’t answer the door has changed.
If you needed a full design and nitty gritty physical inspection, it would be easy enough to spend half a day at whatever your SAA electrician normally charges, say $150hr?
I’ve sometimes recommended people look at buying something like a CatchControl unit to drive a hot water service, and ask for some checks to be done while the qualified people are on site.
In many instances, the DNSP has some requirements in your embedded generator agreement, you’re obliged to have 5 yearly inspections anyway, but nobody’s ever been compelled to my knowledge.
Today, no one checks anyone else’s work; it is all self-regulated, and it’s all not great! Everything from the construction of the house to the electrical and plumbing work – today it is all suspect.
My experience is that owner-building was subject to very cursory inspections 40 years ago, but my second one, a few years back, had them all. However, I did pay several thousand dollars to a building surveyor for that. Mandated, yes, and he’s subject to enormous fines if he even delegates inspection to an employee.
On the electrical side, even off-grid, the megger came out for an insulation test, then he went over the earthing. But some things you have to pick up yourself, like when the installer ran different-length high current DC cabling to two parallelled battery inverters. Read the inverter datasheet carefully, and you see that’s not allowed. A quiet word, and it was cheerfully fixed. An inadequately tightened terminal bolt cooked a cable and isolator. Simple replacement fixed that. Not everything is perfect first time, but it’s operated flawlessly for 2.5 years now, so all good. Trust everyone, but check everything. (And pay only 10% deposit! Don’t trust more than that.)
Without wanting to suggest the numbers aren’t concerning, this line in the report probably biases the sample.
“We also conduct additional inspections on installations by installers who are found to be non-compliant.”
I wonder to what extent frequent flyers inflate the non-compliance rate.
Fair cop, and thanks. I had that caveat in the draft and cut it for length.
The CER says its sample is a random selection from STC applications, plus follow-up inspections on installers already found non-compliant. It doesn’t publish how many of the 3,425 were follow-ups, so nobody outside the regulator can say how much the frequent flyers move the number.
Even if you assume the follow-ups are so bad that they double the rate, you halve 62 per cent to 31 and still land at around 165,000 non-compliant systems.
What you’re more likely right about is the unsafe figure. Twenty-two systems is a small enough number that a handful of repeat offenders could account for a real share of it, so I’d treat the extrapolated 4,000 as an upper limit.
The fix is for the CER to publish the random-sample rate separately. It’s their data; they could do it in a footnote. Maybe they have, and I’ve missed it.
There are around 90 items on the CEC checklist depending on the installation, any failure on any single one of the items on the checklist provides a “substandard” outcome. The vast majority of the findings are for low level items such as the incorrect placement or missing stickers.
Just on 1% of items on the 285,000 or so checked required rectification by the installer.
Thank you for reminding us. This is the real point. A lot of the non-compliance appears to be errors in complying with fiddly rules regarding stickers that have been misplaced rather than life threatening hardware/ wiring faults. Reporting of non-compliance really must clearly separate physical safety defects from procedural flaws that don’t pose a physical risk.
Surely, firies and sparkies are trained to know how to do their jobs around such systems. They just need to be aware of the presence of such systems. I bet my car has a higher risk of exploding and emitting toxic fumes than my battery yet only the battery requires prominent warning stickers and first aid instructions. Some of the regulations seem excessive to me.
Hi Brad,
Solar labelling is a joke really.
I have a complaint about the regulator. Who thought up the notion of so many labels and that they be plastic?
What does each mean?
Ok so the obvious round green meterbox tells a fireythey have a risk. Got that. But the sheer volume and message does not help a lot. a. What is the switch and what is the order to turn a system off and back on?
And why are some just a cheap plastic? Intended to be placed for 15 years they fade rapidly. Red for caution os the first to suffer. Why is it not a more rigid material that does not fade?
Most are just like flouro vests. Useless if you get hit by a bus when you dont look which way you are going. Now these stickers are a regulator problem. A perfectly safe and correctly installed system that just has incorrect stickers a user does not understand.
My mate, a fire brigade man of decades experience says the most useful thing they seek is the system diagram. It tells them what is installed and where it is.How many may be missing? Or badly drawn?
Ah, that would be the qualified electrical contractor who installed it, who is apparently safe enough to do all the other electrical work required on a domestic building without having to have a 3rd party review their work.
If that isn’t safe, then perhaps all their other work should be getting inspected as well…