The affordability of prepaid electricity represents an exceptional yet under examined aspect of the nation's energy transition.

Prepaid electricity — where you pay for electricity before you use it — is in common use in jurisdictions where the proportion of First Nations Australians living remotely is greatest and First Nations poverty rates are uniquely high (above 40 %).

Here we explore a previously overlooked element of the prepaid electricity system in Australia's remote and regional Northern Territory (NT): how it disproportionately burdens high consumption households with a “poverty premium”.

Our findings reveal financial disparities arising from the application of two discrete electricity payment types operating throughout the Territory since 1998: the prepayment tariff versus the residential tariff plus fixed daily supply charge.

By appraising three decades of NT Electricity Pricing Orders (EPOs) we highlight the mechanism by which prepay households using more than a threshold rate of electricity — that has varied over time — are penalised financially.

Using known rates of household energy consumption, we demonstrate that while a subset of households are better off, prepay imposes an annual premium of AUD$57–$253 on those with higher consumption (26-48kWh daily in 2018/19) — homes that incongruously experience both an elevated risk of disconnection during temperature extremes and greater energy expenses than all other Territorians.

Our perspective complicates the trope that prepay is a fairer way to distribute energy costs in Australia's most remote jurisdiction.

Authors: Bradley Riley, Michael Klerck, Francis Markham, Thomas Longden, Vanessa Napaltjari-Davis, Simon Quilty, Jimmy Frank-Jupurrurla, The prepay “poverty premium”: Perspective on Australia's Northern Territory prepayment tariff, Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 127, 2025,
104189, ISSN 2214-6296

Read the report

The Aboriginal land council estate presents a significant opportunity for the NSW Government to achieve its renewable energy targets.

Across NSW, there is huge potential for Aboriginal land to be part of rapid renewable energy development. Local Aboriginal Land Councils (Aboriginal land councils) control most of the Aboriginal land estate in NSW, but much of the land estate is remote and difficult to service with existing power networks. Many land councils express increasing interest in hosting energy projects on their lands to achieve a range of social and economic outcomes.

To date, the Aboriginal land council estate in NSW has not been actively used in the energy transition. This has limited both Aboriginal participation in the renewable energy transition and the realisation of social and economic benefits for Aboriginal communities. Activating the renewable energy potential of the Aboriginal land council estate would create a new avenue for renewable development in NSW and meet the aspirations of the NSW Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap and its associated First Nations Guidelines. Aboriginal land council participation is critical to the delivery of the Australian Government’s First Nations Clean Energy Strategy 2024–2030 and the National Agreement on Closing the Gap (Closing the Gap).

Aboriginal land councils in NSW own and manage 447km2 of land estate, with future Aboriginal land claims amounting to 7,438km2. From a technical perspective, the entire current land estate (447km2) is suitable for solar, which is equivalent to 11GW of renewable energy (installed capacity) while 326km2 is suitable for wind energy projects equivalent to 1.6GW of renewable energy potential (installed capacity).

If outstanding Aboriginal land claims are granted, the renewable energy potential of the Aboriginal land council estate will increase by approximately 19 times for solar energy projects, and approximately 22 times for wind energy projects.

Authors: Professor Heidi Norman, Dr Chris Briggs, Dr Ed Langham, Therese Apolonio, Dr Saori Miyake, Dr Sarah Niklas, Dr Sven Teske, 'Local Aboriginal Land Council Powershift — Sharing the benefits of the energy transition’, June 2025

Read the report

New research confirms First Nations people in Australia have the legal ability to veto clean energy projects on Country.

The clean energy transition has the potential to be very beneficial for the Australian First Nations people on whose Country much of it will occur.

This paper documents results of interviews with legal and financial experts who have very particular insight into the contents of benefits agreements currently being negotiated with First Nations groups for large scale clean energy developments – agreements which are conventionally confidential.

The results of our analysis give reason for cautious optimism in this space, confirming that First Nations people in Australia have the legal ability to veto clean energy projects on Country.

We note the wider impacts of this emergent power of veto, which makes consent more valuable to developers, but also might encourage developers to avoid First Nations Country altogether.

We further observe that as First Nations groups become key stakeholders, or co-owners, in these kinds of development, they also can become exposed to significant financial risk.

The need to access excellent advice for First Nations groups in Australia who are navigating these projects – as developers, co-owners, shareholders, board members and contractors – is more urgent than ever.

Authors: Lily O'Neill, Kathryn Thorburn, First Nations at the forefront: The changing landscape of clean energy agreements in Australia, Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 127, 2025

Read the paper

In Australia, evidence is mounting that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples are and will continue to be disproportionately affected by direct and indirect health impacts of climate change. This pattern is mirrored across the world, with evidence now from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that Indigenous peoples are more vulnerable to climate change.

This latter finding is noteworthy. In particular, with three decades of research into climate change, the IPCC scientists have only recently acknowledged the ongoing role of colonialism as a driver of climate change. This explicit recognition allows acknowledgment of the historical injustices that shape the present day, including the unequal impacts of climate change.

Climate litigation is a complex category of litigation that is constantly changing as new forms of evidence and claims are accommodated in the juridical spaces. One of the more visible categories is rights-based litigation, which refers to cases emerging from ‘the ways in which national constitution, human rights law and other laws in general, imbue individuals and communities with rights to climate mitigation and adaptation action.'

Recent analyses of climate litigation have found climate rights cases documented in countries across the world, however, many of these cases do not see a positive outcome due to, among other factors, financial resources, intimidation, and lack of procedural and strategic ‘know-how’.

In this paper, we argue that a more in-depth analysis of rights-based climate litigation is required. Especially given the inequitable impacts of climate change on Indigenous peoples globally, and the potential structural barriers such as ongoing colonisation that tend to affect government responsiveness and responsibility, there is a compelling need to understand how climate litigations may be used strategically.

More broadly, the report aims to analyse Indigenous-led climate litigation and to consider implications, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the Australian legal context.

Authors: Nona, F., Matthews, V., Lansbury, N., Vine, K., & Ireland, L. 2025, Indigenous-led Rights-based Approaches to Climate Litigation, Discussion paper. Lowitja Institute, Melbourne.

Read the report

Thanks for use of the front cover photo by Wayne Quilliam.

The sovereignty of federally recognised Tribal Nations in the United States is codified in the US Constitution, federal law, and myriad treaty agreements, but the realities of sovereignty are complex.

Federal law has obfuscated Tribal sovereignty, complicating and restricting Tribally owned or managed energy development on Tribal land.

This paper discusses the divergence of Western and Indigenous concepts of sovereignty and analyses federal Tribal law and policy and its implications for Tribal energy development, making two contributions.

The first is to explore whether past federal laws and policies have supported or impeded the ability of Tribal Nations to develop energy projects and utilise energy resources on Tribals lands in the US.

The second is to explore how the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) altered US federal energy policy in the context of Tribal energy sovereignty, assessing the impacts of US federal Tribal policy on Tribal sovereignty in terms of de recto (by right), de facto (in fact), or de jure (by law).

This research reveals that the IRA encouraged de facto Tribal energy sovereignty, advancing Tribal self-determination by reducing dependence, increasing benefits, and empowering decision making for Tribal Nations in the US.

Authors: Don Lee, Chelsea Schelly, The Inflation Reduction Act: Implications for energy development, energy sovereignty, and self-determination for federally recognized Tribal Nations in the US, Energy Policy, Volume 205, 2025

Read an abstract of the report

Thanks for the cover image gratefully used from here.

The importance of community engagement and strong working partnerships during operations and inevitable mine closure cannot be overstated. 

In many jurisdictions around the world, mining and extractive industries are closely associated with environmental degradation, injustice, and colonial dispossession.

Less frequently considered in the scholarship on mining and injustice are the impacts of mine closure and mining's long-term social and environmental legacies.

Mine closure and remediation is often the longest and most complex phase of the mining cycle, yet it receives the least attention during project assessment and approval. The long-term, even perpetual, nature of post-mining impacts is a major socio-ecological challenge and contributes to cumulative impacts in extractive regions, particularly for local and Indigenous communities whose lands host large-scale mining, but who are often excluded or marginalized in discussions of mine closure and remediation. 

This Special Section brings together a series of Indigenous-authored and collaborative articles offering a deeper exploration of community perspectives, engagements and governance practices at extractive sites in Australia and Canada. 

Written from diverse ecological, social and political contexts, taken together the articles elevate Indigenous voices and experiences in mine closure governance.

This addresses the significant gap in the literature on the social aspects of mine closure, which is particularly glaring in relation to Indigenous peoples' rights and interests.

Authors: Holcombe, S. E., Hall, R. J. & Keeling, A., (2025) “Self-Determination in mine site transitions and mine closure governance across Indigenous nations”, Journal of Political Ecology 32(1): 8604. doi: https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.8604

Read the paper

Thanks for use of the cover photo by Yong Chuan Tan on Unsplash

For many remote Indigenous communities across Australia, electricity continues to be unreliable, unaffordable and inequitable, impacting quality of life and the ability to remain on Country.

This paper speaks to energy access challenges, the role of adequate housing in energy solutions, past successes that can be leveraged by future programs, community perspectives on energy and the interface with Indigenous culture, and emerging trends in best-practice energy delivery.

It also reflects on the opportunities that a decentralised, renewables-focused energy system offers remote communities in terms of improved living conditions and self-determination.

Authors: Ruby Heard, Michael Berris, Anna Cain, Chris Croker, Michael Frangos, Donna Fraser, Andre Grant, Brad Riley, Paul Rodden, The current state of power supply to remote Indigenous communities, Engineers Australia, April 2025

Read the paper

In Australia, prepayment is ubiquitous in remote First Nations communities but is rarely used or banned in other locations.

Prepayment for household electricity services disrupts energy access by privatising the risks of disconnection within vulnerable households, justifying critical appraisal of the rationalisations and policy settings for its use.

Despite a growing literature documenting the potential harms of prepay and its concentration in remote and predominantly Indigenous households, these issues have received limited attention in Australian energy policy debates.

To progress the policy discourse, this qualitative study examines the policy origins and dominant rationales for use of prepay in different parts of Australia using causal process tracing.

Drawing on an original dataset of over 1650 publicly accessible documents from the period 1973–2023, a chronology is established showing that prepay systems were first introduced in remote Indigenous communities in Queensland and the Northern Territory with subsequent use in varying contexts in Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia.

Policy motivations differ between grid interconnected regions and remote Indigenous settlements.

In interconnected regions, prepay emerged as a voluntary product associated with competitive retail market reforms and was subject to varying degrees of regulation but is now either banned or no longer offered by retailers.

By contrast, in remote and some urban Indigenous communities prepay endures as a default or mandatory payment system – highlighting how settler colonial energy policies have consistently prioritised supply-side objectives within under-served communities subject to past and present injustices including pervasive energy insecurity.

Author: Sally Wilson, Disrupting household energy rights: Examining the policy origins of prepayment for electricity services in Australia, Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 124, 2025,

Read the paper

Canada is home to around 240 remote communities that rely on diesel fuel to heat and provide electricity to their homes. This system of heating and electricity generation comes with significant social, economic, and environmental costs that Indigenous governments and businesses are working hard to address through clean energy development. For those governments and businesses who seek to transition away from diesel and toward cleaner, locally produced energy, there are a number of barriers to overcome. Key among them are regulatory and legislative roadblocks that make Indigenous leadership in the energy transition especially challenging.

As part of the Pembina Institute’s Rethinking Regulation to Decarbonize Canada series, we examine the regulatory and legislative challenges that remote Indigenous communities face as they seek to reduce diesel use and decarbonize remote microgrids. In particular, we focus on the regulatory systems of four jurisdictions in Canada: British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and the Yukon.

Authors: He, Emily, Arthur Bledsoe and Fibha Nazim. Decarbonizing Remote Indigenous Communities: Regulatory reform in B.C. and the territories. The Pembina Institute, 2025.

Read the summary report