Treasurer Jim Chalmers has announced the Albanese government’s federal subsidy taking some of the sting out of electricity bills will not be further extended.
What Is The Energy Bill Relief Fund?
Originally to run for just a year, Australia’s Energy Bill Relief Fund was set up with $1.5 billion in 2023-24. An extension was announced and implemented from July 1, 2024, continuing into 2025.
The rebates haven’t been means-tested. All grid-connected households receiving an electricity bill were initially provided $300 in rebates for the 2024–25 financial year. Support then dropped to $150 from 1 July 2025 to the end of 2025; automatically applied to electricity bills in two $75 quarterly instalments.
In addition to providing direct relief to households, the rebate reduced Australia’s headline inflation; which is a total measure of price changes for all goods and services.
Commenting on the decision to end the relief yesterday, Treasurer Chalmers said:
“We’ve been up-front with people and said that these were never going to be a permanent feature of the budget.”
How Much Have The Rebates Cost?
The Energy Bill Relief Fund has reportedly been funded with $7 billion from the feds to date, with states tipping in another $1.5 billion.
Households Still Struggling
As we reported late last week, Energy Consumers Australia’s (ECA’s) December 2025 Consumer Energy Report Card reveals many households have been continuing to struggle to pay their power bills, even with the government support. 16% reported experiencing difficulties paying an electricity bill in the last 6 months, while 17% struggled with a gas bill.
In another report based on recently released data from the Australian Energy Regulator, Anti-Poverty Centre, Parents For Climate and Sweltering Cities said 336,615 Australian households were in energy debt in 2024. The average value of a household’s energy debt jumped by $219 last year — to $1,367.
“While the Federal Government’s rebates provided some relief to hardship customers and those with very small debts at the beginning of the year, these were much less impactful in the second half of the year when debts were higher,” they state.
A Call For Real Action On Energy Bills
The groups are leading a campaign called Stop The Bill Shock; claiming that despite falling wholesale prices thanks to renewables, Australia’s largest energy retailers posted significant profit increases across FY24 and early FY25. The campaign calls for state and federal governments to:
- Wipe existing energy debts now.
- Make companies pass on more of the savings generated by renewable energy.
- Implement new rules and regulations to make the market fairer and stop profiteering.
- Expand funding and support for home upgrades such as solar, insulation and efficient cooling.
“The government should be stepping in to stop energy retailers taking the piss,” said Jay Coonan from Antipoverty Centre. “They’ve had it too good for too long and people are sick of paying through the nose while CEO’s make millions and shareholders make off with dividends.”
But there’s more to it. The Climate Council says among key reasons power bills are sky high:
- Australia’s energy system is still too heavily reliant on expensive fossil fuels.
- The vast majority of Australia’s gas is exported; meaning we have to compete with global export prices. This pricey gas often sets power prices.
- Ageing and unreliable coal-fired power stations pushing up wholesale prices during outages and related events.
The Clean Energy Council says electricity price pressure is also coming from being stuck between old coal assets failing and new renewable assets not arriving fast enough.
“The Australian Energy Market Commission last week released its Residential Electricity Price Trends 2025 report, highlighting that despite electricity prices being projected to fall by 5 per cent by 2030, delays to renewable generation, firming and transmission projects can add up to 20 per cent to household bills if the system is forced to lean on unreliable 40-year-old coal generators,” says the CEC.
Added to all that, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine created a surge in energy prices not just in Australia, but across the world.
Have you compared electricity plans lately to ensure you’re on the best deal possible? If not, it might be a good time to before summer really hits. And some commenters on this blog have pointed out that directly negotiating with retailers can also be fruitful, rather than just relying on their published offers. Give your retailer a call and see if they’ll provide you a better deal — it could turn out to be good investment of a small amount time.
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
The fed gov has just provided me with 30% of my batterys for free. As a result my monthly electricity bill is now small enough to be insignificant while our family uses electricity in the home as though it cost nothing…because it does…. the loss of $75 a quarter is not missed by me. I know YMMV depending on circumstances…
While i basically dont pay for power, the subsidy has been doing a pretty good job of putting a hole in my daily connection fees, as we get basically nothing for power we feed in these days..
What’s your plan’s FiT?
With all the government handouts, plus a 10c/kWh FiT, I break even or better most quarters. (Or was that break even without the bonus?)
If\when I lose my decent FiT, and charges naturally rise, I’ll probably look very very very closely at off-grid options. Actually, does Labor’s subsidy cover off-grid?
The ‘new’ plans on offer look to cost me $1,000/year in FiTs, with supply costs also up fractionally.
The loss in FiTs roughly equates to the cost of a 10+kWh battery though not a replacement battery capable inverter. Factor in my current grid consumption plus daily supply charges and I more than double that budget. That might cover a tiny generator, the replacement inverter, and 50%+ battery capacity!
NB: I currently export about 4x what I buy from the grid and have
38%-75% self sufficiency – basically depending on AC use. Yes it’s power hungry!
About the only reason to stay on grid would be if government subsidies justified retaining the connection.
Hi John,
It’s really only the economically dumb, comically short sighted & selfishly motivated who think going off grid, and using public subsidy to do it, is a good idea.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/off-grid-in-suburbs/
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/battery-cash-grid-crash/
Treasury is really shooting the government in the foot here, firstly with the ridiculous EV tax, and now leaving them wide open to populist assault from the anti-renewables crowd, on power prices.
Compensation during the transition of the grid should always have been part of the planning. It’s still orders of magnitude cheaper than the alternative, new coal plants (or nuclear, spare me). They could cancel just one of the proposed nuclear subs and do all of this with plenty of change.
How is the EV tax ridiculous? You use the roads you deserve to pay for the privilege just as ICEV drivers already have to.
How is Treasury leaving Labor “wide open to populist assault from the anti-renewables crowd, on power prices”?
And is transitioning from a centralised nuke, coal, gas, and hydro grid actually cheaper than a dispersed grid with (unwanted) mass battery farms, solar farms, and wind farms imposed on rural regions?
Cancelling the planned nuclear subs is not an option – Australia’s military is already undermanned, underfunded, and verging on obsolete.
Petrol excise doesn’t pay for roads now, it just goes into general revenue. Combustion-engined vehicles have had a free ride for a century on the public purse, with free pollution, if anything they should up the excise severalfold on those. The countries that have made progress transition their fleets to electric dumped all taxes on electric vehicles to make them the preferred option.
Our existing coal plants are falling apart and the fact nobody in private industry will even touch the idea of building another one tells you which is by far the cheapest option to move forward with.
There’s not one strategic way nuclear subs help Australia’s defence. The Americans want us to pay for them as their own launch platforms from the Pacific, into China.
Government diversion of funding doesn’t change public understanding.
ICEVs had a free ride on the public purse??? When was this taxpayer funded free ride? You’re making crap up. ICEV exhaust doesn’t count. It’s only an issue in dense cities – air pollution. Feel free to tax city dwellers for their impact on air quality though!!!
Yes countries promoting EVs heavily subsidise them with taxpayer funds.
If coal plants were falling apart workplace health and safety would be shutting them down. Yet the latest power plant shutdown was solar – oops!
Private industry isn’t investing because Green-Teal-Labor has poisoned the well. If the Coalition, or their successor, end Big Green’s free ride then private industry investment in wind, solar, and batteries will crash likewise!!!
Er Australia needs naval defence capabilities, or you think defence of maritime borders is overrated? This isn’t really an American issue, indeed some Americans are vocally opposed to AUKUS – not their problem!
The last global estimate of subsidy to the fossil fuel industry for their free emissions is $7 trillion per year. When was the last time you paid an exhaust tax on your car? They don’t exist. Try starting any other business with regular and known pollution today, it would either be rejected, or large fees would apply to deal with the pollution. The subsidies given to EVs are a pittance by comparison.
I know engineers who work in our major coal plants. All of their days are occupied trying to keep them running. They break down daily, and are often offline. The entire industry will tell you they’re due for retirement.
I sense your points are mostly political anyway, rather than about any of the facts of the issues.
Sorry Nick but you’re spewing garbage. When was the last time you paid a tax for breathing? Oh or emissions out the other end. Your CO2 and methane emissions should be taxable right?
The reality is vehicle fumes are an accepted and non-problematic cost of modern life in most areas – large cities being open to debate given their awful air quality. Feel free to propose high taxation for ICEV owners in those areas.
To equate failure to be taxed with subsidies is to square a circle. By contrast the billions in EV subsidies can be objectively measured in part. A lot are hidden so there’s guesswork involved, but there’s no denying Big Green is making money.
Fact based actually, just not the same political basis for said facts.
Hi John,
Data from Transport for London and the Greater London Authority shows that since the ULEZ expansion to all London boroughs in August 2023, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) levels have fallen by 27% across the city, with reductions of up to 54% in central London and 29% in inner London.
Particulate matter (PM2.5) exhaust emissions in outer London are 31% lower, equivalent to removing 200,000 cars from the road for a year, or all of London’s airport emissions. (PM2.5 being responsible for heart & lung diseases, heart attacks, stroke, COPD, lung cancer, asthma, and lower respiratory infections.)
Compliance has also improved dramatically, with nearly 97% of vehicles in London now meeting ULEZ standards, up from just 39% in 2017.
These improvements have led to significant benefits for public health, especially in the city’s most deprived communities, and the scheme is credited with helping London move much closer to meeting World Health Organization air quality guidelines.
John, you are explaining the cost structure of the modern grid, which is a different discussion. My point was about basic demand behaviour. When the marginal cost of using something falls toward zero, people naturally use more of it. That was true for water once it was reticulated into homes and it is true for electricity when governments subsidise bills. It is not about whether people had flushing toilets in the past. It is about the price signal that moderates consumption. Remove or blunt that signal and demand rises, which then increases the very system costs everyone is concerned about.
A universal GVM-based RUC from 2027 and remove the fuel rebate. Done!
We want ICE vehicles off the road. Do as Norway did, remove all taxes on electric, keep the charges for the combustion clunkers. Compensate the freight industry if necessary. Weight isn’t the issue, emissions is the issue.
Yikes! I had no idea the total subsidy bill was that high.
I was never a fan of direct energy subsidies in a grid that is still nearly 60% Fossil Fueled. And not means testing it was just lazy policy.
I am a fan of Price Signals though.
Maybe we need to shine a light on how much profit Gentailers and poles and wires companies are making from what used to be a Nationalised service.
They would be far better off spending the money needed to build the infrastructure required.
Instead they let private industry do it and cream off a guaranteed profit, or slug retail consumers for it as part of the price of the power they pay for.
Cancel the US subs we wont see anyway, and they would have ample funds to renew the entire electrical network.
I am truly over government thinking it is a for profit organisation.
For anyone unconvinced that SQ’s editorial policy hasn’t changed since being sold, here is an article drawing attention to a campaign attacking their owner’s profits. Surely that speaks volumes.
Good luck to #StopTheBS. It’s a tough ask; maybe Bowen’s DMO reforms will help. Grattan Institute says there are 2.5 million customers paying more than the DMO. Many of these are society’s most vulnerable people — that’s unconscionable conduct. Retailers should be shamed on this matter alone. The next DMO may prohibit retailers doing this; they could make a gesture of goodwill by voluntarily stopping the practice before Christmas.
I see that the ABC is calling out the gas industry for it’s effects on electricity pricing and a possible solution.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-09/time-to-fix-gas-policy-to-ease-inflation-cost-of-living-pressure/106116030
It was always a band-aid and one that potentially worsened the cause by covering for gentailer profiteering. Like first homebuyer grants really funnelling to home-sellers.
The article does a good job of covering root causes. The problem is that fixing these is received by the public as “if only, eh?”. It can actually be done though, especially while the Coalition is in tatters and the government has political capital to spend (and doesn’t need to waste money on “please like me” handouts).
We should give credit to Chris Bowen’s successes so far; and with that, hope that he is emboldened for the boss-fight of taking on the gas cartel.
When everyone in a village had to pump water from a well and carry it home, people used water very carefully because every extra bucket had a real cost in time and effort. Once water was piped directly to every home, consumption rose sharply. The economics are simple. When you make something feel cheap or free, demand goes up. Governments never seem to recognise this, especially Labor governments that keep trying to subsidise electricity bills. If you remove the price signal, consumption increases and the structural problems behind high prices remain unresolved.
Back when folk pumped their own water they also didn’t have flushing toilets, showers, or any of the other essentials of modern life, so is that parallel valid?
People are charged hundreds each year just for the privilege of having an electricity connection. This is, in theory, the grid cost plus other costs for actually supplying, and administering the service, and comprises up to about half your bill. This is unavoidable, and exacerbated by renewable energy’s requirement for a greatly expanded grid.
The actual use charge is the one impacted by fuel differences, and ROI expectations – old coal plants likely have a lower ROI than new solar farms since the former should already have paid for themselves several times over!
Since electricity is monopolistic, so long as those who can afford electricity pay more, corporations have no reason to lower prices.
John, you are explaining the cost structure of the modern grid, which is a different discussion. My point was about basic demand behaviour. When the marginal cost of using something falls toward zero, people naturally use more of it. That was true for water once it was reticulated into homes and it is true for electricity when governments subsidise bills. It is not about whether people had flushing toilets in the past. It is about the price signal that moderates consumption. Remove or blunt that signal and demand rises, which then increases the very system costs everyone is concerned about.
Providing solar subsidies and later battery subsidies was put in place to help with the grid infrastructure not the uses. The plan must now be to ensure that all new housing Australia wide installs solar for power and either solar or heat pump for water. Not only that but the crappy insulation standard should be raised and for thoses that retrofit insulation and at least double glazing to receive a tax benefit for owners and investors to lessen the upgrades need on the grid. That standard should apply to commercial building as well. That comment will go in one ear and out the other because our politicians have no balls.
Given that Australia’s (healthy) rooftop solar explosion is traceable back to the Howard government’s introduction of the subsidy scheme for panels, I think the politics is pretty irrelevant.
Price signals are bunkum. All meaningful change is led, there is no such thing as a ‘market’ despite the popularity of the idea. Whenever something takes off, look for what led it, people don’t all spontaneously wake up every day and suddenly decide to all move in a certain direction.
Shhhh..! Nick..!
Don’t go telling people John Howard established the RET and it’s a price on pollution paid by the largest 200 emitters… they might get some idea it’s a carbon tax and we’ll all be rooooooned!
It’s depressing to contemplate the progress we were making and where we would have been by now; if it wasn’t for the climate and culture wars of Tony Abbott et al.
There is an excellent piece around somewhere. Alan Pears maybe.
‘Counting the cost of Tony Abbott’s war on renewables’ where he points out thanks to the delay in increasing the LRET, LGC prices went through the roof and we were able to install much more renewables (eventually) due to falling costs of solar and wind.
Hi Rod,
I maintain that the Liberals privatising ETSA was nothing short of treason, proven by the fact they deliberately cancelled the NSW interconnection, to make the asset less competitive. They could then demand a higher sticker price on the 200 year lease, knowing the new owner would be able to gouge the consumers more.
However the subsequent price rises really drove the consumers to invest in solar. They spent more than was economically rational in order to stick it to the man.
The grid connect solar industry was born in South Australia because of it.
Agree with all that.
I was a ‘victim’ of the ETSA Privatisation and I’m sure one of the motivators for me being number 128 grid connected solar household in the country was sticking it to the man.
However the high Premium FiT and long sunset date means most of those who got in early have seen a decent ROI.
But yes, one reason SA has so much rooftop solar was high ‘bills’ rather than the other way around as some suggest.
Anthony,
It seems to me that you’ve shown that superior technology at falling prices trumps greed and political corruption, whether the remedy is deployed by competitors or (most gratifyingly) by consumers themselves.
With a sunny day *being* the wireless power grid here, when the BEV mini excavator arrives early next week, I’ll be able to off-grid charge two vehicles, + HWS, etc, to go over 60 kWh consumption in a day without any vulnerable grid to rebuild after storms, or pay for.
Any family which can bring forward trade-in of one older ICE fuel-cost liability-on-wheels, will soon profit also.
We need more regional batteries to support fast charging of heavy trucks for cheaper groceries. One day we’ll follow China’s 2026 60% BEV heavy truck sales ratio. (50% now)
All too slow to avoid severe climate pain, but better able to endure the grid outages, fuel shortages, and eventually, food shortages to come – if you’re on high ground. (Bye bye Miami beach in 25 years)
Australia should be the Saudi Arabia of the renewables age. The old conservative men determined to back in foreign oil, gas and coal companies are treasonous.
Labor’s on the verge of a $1 trillion national deficit. They can’t afford energy bill subsidies. Don’t get me wrong, everybody appreciates generous handouts from Mr Taxpayer, but those paying don’t appreciate the cost, or the debt left for the next generation.
A quick Duck suggests Origin (SQ’s parent company) had revenue of $17.2 billion, but only made $1.48 billion in net income. The profit margin was 8.6%. This isn’t radical, especially when compared to the likes of banks! LPG also appears to have contributed significantly to their profit margin! By contrast AGL reported a loss for FY2025!
This strongly suggests ability to reduce bill costs is limited! Those who believe otherwise can always join Amber etc. The issue is structural, not corporate.
One intriguing suggestion I’ve seen elsewhere is for AEMC to switch from a just in time bidding process that favours high cost fast response systems like gas, to a day before bidding system that supports slow response but reliable energy.
There is no national debt of $1 trillion. Sovereign currencies don’t need to borrow to fund public spending. All Western economies have been ‘printing’ the stuff for decades with no ill effect.
So all the headlines and news items about national debt are bogus? Curious how you see things differently.
The Weimar Republic suggests printing without ill effect is a dangerous myth!
The Weimar example is always trotted out. Major nations have been creating money for their own uses for decades. Who would they pay it back to?
Inflation happens only when there’s too much money in circulation and not enough capacity to produce the things people want. That’s what starts bidding wars. Most modern economies have plenty of spare capacity, the problem today is too few taxes (which aren’t for revenue but to control the amount of money in circulation) on those who hold large quantities of our fiat currency. Mostly the old. They’re spending with abandon, driving prices up.
Not always, but often, and likely because it’s the most famous and most commonly taught. Governments borrow to pay debt, they don’t just create money, and when they can’t pay …
Who owns Australia’s debt? Governments issue bonds that are bought by domestic banks, institutions, and individuals, foreign governments and investors, central banks, and investment funds including pension or superannuation funds.
In Australia’s case, two-thirds of national debt is owned by foreign entities, but what foreign nations, what entities, and is that debt purely a profit making exercise, or is it an exercise in political pressure?
Even if you ignore who owns the debt, that’s more than $50 billion being wasted every year just to pay the interest on what Australia owes, and even as Australia’s financial situation worsens, that debt balance is rising – predicted to reach $1.257 trillion in 2028-29
Hi John,
I’d normally remove the perjorative context at the bottom but I figured you’d enjoy this infographic.
Hyperbole aside, it would appear gross debt is predicted to reach a record high not seen since the LNP were last in charge.
There are so many public servants now that had the subsidy been restricted to those that need it by them, it could probably be continued affordably by paying only those on the healthcare card list which would involve only a computer run list by Centrelink.
As costs are still high due to the grid renewal and pole and wire (HV Tower) teething troubles the subsidy should be continued until the eventual promised cheap power is available.
The UK attempted to remove their subsidy but I believe they had to restore it owing to many deaths from cold or in our case it will be from heat..
Yes Labour removed the subsidy, yes there were plenty of deaths, and polling has absolutely plummeted with the result Reform (Farage) could maybe be the next government, but I’m not aware of any restoration. Old people are less inclined to vote Labour so wouldn’t dead non-Labour voters be to Labour’s benefit?
So the solutions according to the article are to recommend:
1. more renewables…which compound the peak/trough dynamic and the need for constant investment as the renewables lifecycle is shorter.
2. Investment that will require high rates of return and therefore entrench higher bill costs.
3. Expand the subsidy for rich, home owning households to have higher quality insulation and batteries which might insulate them.
All this does is entrench the death of the grid and the efficient scale of grid dispatched power that utilities and civilisation are built on. This is the equivalent of asking every house to build their own rain water catchment, cleaning and pumping facility and then hoping it rains.
I say this as someone who is very happy with the battery taxpayers have subsidised for me because I can see what’s coming with all this nonsense. If you want renewables then they should be able to be grid scale size and dispatched via existing poles and wires.
Sewage is already moving towards independent single house systems in some areas, and there are plenty of houses not on town water too. ‘Grid Zero’ electricity is entirely consistent with that, and much simpler to do!!!
Are public utilities are yesteryear concept?
John,
In cities, collective utilities remain essential where individual water supply and sewage are impractical. Even in Elizabethan times, water and muck carting were merely older transport mechanisms for a common service, even if privatised.
But here we’ve been off-grid for 61 years – water, sewage, and electricity.
That made for shortages; in drought a bucket of water bathed the baby, then washed her clothes in the baby bath, then mopped the kitchen lino, and finally went onto the most prized garden plants in an attempt at their survival. One bath a week for the rest, in shared water. Droughts weren’t fun, especially when you had to shoot 80% of the cattle herd. (Sorry)
Resilience pays – also in grid failure. Grid DERs will be needed in time.
Here, water, sewage, and power are ample now, and motoring photon-powered. The self-reliant will offload services to better cope with the ill-prepared as maintaining above-ground grids becomes harder.
Minor point – are you suggesting below-ground grids are a better option?
We’ve had HV pylons flattened by mere +1.5°C storms, several in one week. At +2.5°C by 2060 or so, and over +3.5°C within 75 yrs, it seems likely that we underground the national grid ($xxT), or adopt wireless solar distribution with regional geothermal, wind, and megabattery firming for more reliable supply. (AI won’t help.)
It’s minimal disruption c.f. UK. The AMOC collapsed 25 times in the last ice age, is weakening now, to likely stop again between 2037 & 2070, for -20°C London winters, hotter summers, & massive food imports:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmd6MDiJmQU
(UK killed coal for a reason)
Pretending we need decades of data to prove we’re cooking is wearing thin.
It’s accelerating, and it’ll stress civilisation, changing it – and geography.
Yet folk drive ICE cars – higher cost now, and appalling cost for their kids.
Why?
Why not go hard now, for less wartime-effort and loss later?
OK, China is doing the heavy lifting – BEV trucks now. Let’s follow, also for profit.
Sorry Erik but we’re going to have to agree to disagree. CCP China is the primary contributor of CO2, not the country doing the heavy lifting. Either they’re the biggest problem, or CO2 isn’t a problem, but you can’t argue they’re leading the way in solving anything.
ICEVs are low cost, long range, and minimal environmental impact. They also handle flooding better. Yes YMMV.
Since folk don’t see the cooking claims, clearly more data is needed to convince folk. What people do see is urban densification, construction in flood zones, and other poor design choices. Human stupidity =/= climate change, but we’re told sacrifice to solve the latter, while the former is ignored.
Wireless solar distribution? I don’t understand what you mean – electricity via wifi? Pretty sure I don’t have that right!!! Wireless also works badly in some terrain – you need hardlines (or satellites) or you get nothing.
Is it worth noting Africa looks to be opting to pursue fossil fuel and nuclear development?
Hi John,
China makes 90% of the world’s solar.
Their domestic coal miners are building power plants which are only falling in market share & utilisation.
In 2024, the world installed over 7 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear power capacity, which was a huge uptick of 33% compared to 2023. This brought the total global installed nuclear capacity to around 420 GW as of early 2025.
In the last year China alone added 435GW of Solar PV which even considering 95% vs 25% capacity factor will deliver 10,000GW more yield than the afore mentioned nukes.
TWELVE MONTHS it took them.
(It took 60 years for the world to install it’s first Tearrawatt of solar and less than two years to install the second Terrawatt)
https://climateenergyfinance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MONTHLY-CHINA-ENERGY-UPDATE-Feb-2025.pdf
https://taiyangnews.info/markets/china-solar-installations-4m-2025
D2,
Renewables are near-free during the service life, but the capital cost is up-front. So the transition hurts – temporarily. Subsequent replacement is conveniently piecewise, entirely paid for by fuel cost savings. It’s like buying a BEV – changeover cost, followed by free motoring and stuff all maintenance cost. Money in the bank!
Regional gridscale batteries will be key as diesel transport dies, replaced by BEV heavy trucks, 50% of sales in China now. Grid upgrading to handle remote bulk fast chargers is too expensive. More batteries also replace delayed/abandoned windfarms, by allowing solar to do more.
Renters need landlord compulsion – in climate extremes, insulation is a human right! Home owners: Cycle or carpool to save petrol – to pay for insulation – it will pay you back.
Fossils are dead. Renewables are irresistible – economically overwhelming.
Yeah, the well-heeled benefit first, but also reduce prices for follow-on folk, still haplessly climate-destroying.