No

First, it's important to state that the factors most impacting energy bills are mostly outside the federal government's control. For example, increases in power prices during the first two years of Labor’s current term were mostly due to the war in Ukraine and a combination of adverse weather and coal plant availability.

And different expert assumptions produce different forecasts of household electricity prices under current policies.

The Coalition’s nuclear proposal will not impact prices for at least ten years, which is how long it will take to build the nuclear plants. Its gas reservation proposal will provide some price relief, but there is not enough published detail to know how it will work in practice.

Labor’s existing electricity rebates have reduced prices for consumers. But this is a short-term measure. They do not reduce the cost of electricity, and when they are discontinued, as will happen eventually, prices will increase. Labor's battery rebate program will lead to lower electricity bills – at least for those who can afford to install solar and cover the remaining battery cost after the rebate is applied.

In summary, the substance of policies from both sides does not provide any reason to expect significantly lower residential energy prices than we see today. But other things being equal, Labor's policies are likely to deliver marginally lower prices than the Coalition's. Realistically, the impact will be lost in the noise.

View author profile

No

The CSIRO has found new nuclear power would cost far more than expanding electricity generation from renewable energy. Given the time delays involved, the nuclear plan would also require keeping old and unreliable coal plants operating for longer. This would also increase energy costs for households.

The nuclear proposal is arguably a cover for a range of Coalition policies that would delay the decarbonisation of electricity supply and slow the low-emissions transition in transport and industry. Nationals senator Matt Canavan conceded as much when he told The Guardian:

We should build some nuclear power stations [...] But we’re latching on to it as a silver bullet, as a panacea, because it fixes a political issue for us, that it’s low-emission and it’s reliable. But it ain’t the cheapest form of power.

On the other hand, the Coalition's gas reservation policy could slightly lower household energy costs for Australians. But it will face vigorous resistance from the gas industry.

View author profile

No

Nuclear energy infrastructure is expensive and slow to build. The Coalition says its plan to build seven large nuclear power plants would cost A$120 billion. These capital costs will be reflected in household energy bills.

Longer-term cost efficiencies may be possible, but this won't happen for decades, once capital costs are repaid.

The Coalition's costings show its gas policies would reduce residential electricity prices by just 3%. And the Coalition's so-called "gas reservation" plan does not address the gas shortages which drive up prices. It would apply only to new (not existing) gas exporters, and only in their first year of operation.

Expanding new renewable energy generation, in line with Labor's policies, is far cheaper than building new nuclear generation. Technological development over the next few decades is likely to reduce the cost of renewable generation even further.

Labor's Rewiring the Nation program and battery storage subsidies will help more households access this cheaper renewable energy.

View author profile

No

Labor wants to greatly expand the share of renewables in Australia's energy mix. Currently, electricity from systems with renewable shares of between 80–85% is more expensive than that from nuclear-dominated systems.

However, renewable energy costs are falling rapidly. If these costs continue to fall at a significant rate in coming years, as many studies claim they will, then wholesale energy from renewables-dominated systems is likely to be cheaper than nuclear. This will put downward pressure on home energy bills.

However, price volatility must also be considered. The price of nuclear energy is less volatile than renewable energy, because it can be produced regardless of the weather which makes its output more certain. This volatility is projected to increase as the share of renewables grows. This makes it harder to justify long-term investment in industrial facilities that use a lot of electricity.

So, high shares of renewables in the electricity mix may affect economic growth. But this volatility can be somewhat smoothed by technologies such as energy storage. And these cost considerations should be balanced against other factors, such as the economic damage climate change will cause.

View author profile

No

The CSIRO has shown nuclear power is uneconomic compared to clean energy, when other costs such as transmission, storage and grid upgrades are taken into account. The Coalition has also pledged to build the seven nuclear plants with public money – costs ultimately borne by taxpayers.

The Coalition's policies would slow the renewables rollout and delay investment in electricity transmission infrastructure. As the Australian Energy Market Operator has warned, such a delay "will increase risks to the energy transition and its benefits". AEMO has also noted that unplanned outages of ageing coal generators are increasing. This also drives up energy costs.

Labor's battery rebate will help expand home electrification. Analysis shows homes that move from gas to electricity are cheaper to power.

Household energy costs extend beyond power bills. The Coalition pledge to reduce the fuel excise will reduce transport costs for some households, but it's a temporary measure – and will mostly benefit people driving the most petrol-guzzling, polluting vehicles. Meanwhile, its pledge to unwind tax breaks for electric cars will prevent people from accessing the lower operating costs of low-emissions vehicles.

View author profile

Tony Wood may own shares in companies in relevant industries through his superannuation fund.

John Quiggin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Samantha Hepburn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Magnus Söderberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Daniel J Cass does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.