Anna Collyer, Chair

Keynote address, Australian Energy Week Conference 2026

Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre

Good morning. Let me begin by acknowledging the Traditional Owners of the land on which we meet today, the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people of the Kulin Nation.

I pay my respects to their Elders past and present, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people joining us today.

It’s wonderful to be back at Australian Energy Week. And it’s especially fitting that it’s on the banks of the Yarra – known to Traditional Owners as the Birrarung. It’s a place where people have come together over millennia to share ideas and navigate the big questions of the time.

And this chapter of the energy transition certainly has plenty of big questions. 

My first keynote here was in 2021, shortly after being appointed Chair of the AEMC.

I was full of energy, with the slightly fresher look of someone who hadn’t spent five years trying to keep pace with a transformation that was basically rewriting its own rules.

I mention this because I used that speech to outline three ways the Commission would operate under my leadership.

We needed to be forward-looking - to have a clearer view of the future, and design towards it.

We needed to be pragmatic - willing to shift direction when the evidence told us something was not working.

And we needed to be collaborative - because the scale of change ahead could not be managed by any one institution alone.

I believe we have stayed true to those principles.

And I am especially proud of how we have applied them to big reforms to bring consumers – and their consumer energy resources – to the forefront of this transition.

Which brings me to the next five years. Because the AEMC will continue to be collaborative, forward thinking and practical. 

But we have also been challenged by our stakeholders to be bolder. To bring the sector together on those hotly contested questions, that pose a very real and serious risk to consumers, if we don’t find a path forward together, now. 

Speaking of ‘hotly contested’ - I’ll come to one of our Pricing Review’s final recommendations soon. And – stay with me here - how it compares to buying Milk. 

But let me start with data centres. Because they’ve quickly become the lightning rod for two enormous shifts: the energy transition and the growth of AI. 

There is a clear national interest in ensuring more of the data Australians generate can be processed here. And there is a major economic opportunity in attracting that global investment. 

But we can’t pursue that opportunity at the expense of energy customers. Especially when many remain under real cost-of-living pressures. 

That is the starting point for the AEMC’s work – data centre development must not leave consumers worse off. 

On the flip side, data centre development could actually lead to power system benefits – but that depends on getting the planning, connection and operating arrangements right. 

So we are currently working on two fronts. 

First, we are updating technical standards to connect large loads, including data centres, to the grid. We expect to finalise a rule change later this year.

The purpose is to support timely connections while protecting system security. And because data centres are not homogenous and pose different levels of risk, the standards will be tiered, giving proponents clearer expectations from the outset. 

The second is our advice to Energy Ministers on how to implement one of their requests that data centres offset their electricity demand, through renewable energy generation, firming and demand flexibility.

We’ll present that advice next month, and we are speaking regularly with stakeholders to help inform our own thinking. 

Now I know there is a lot of interest in this work. We’ve heard from a lot of people – and their priorities are often not aligned. 

Data centre operators want speed to market. They make the point that they are already investing heavily in renewable energy that will support the wider system.

But the scale of what’s being proposed has many others rightfully concerned about what happens if that rapid growth is not properly coordinated. 

Fortunately, in this instance, we have the benefit of learning from experiences overseas, where in some cases, data centre growth has created extreme pressures on the grid. 

We have spoken about this with counterparts in North America and Ireland. The lesson is not as simple as data centres are the problem.

The lesson is that very large loads need to be planned, connected and operated as part of that integrated system.

Proactive and pragmatic regulation is crucial here. And its effectiveness relies on governments pulling in the same direction. 

States and territories have different priorities and may well compete for investment. That is understandable. However, the fact Energy Ministers have jointly asked us to do this work shows there is already a recognition that these issues need to be managed together.

Because we operate in a shared energy system. Electrons do not obey borders and the consequences of major investment decisions rarely stay within a single jurisdiction.

We can see that playing out today around Lake Tahoe, which straddles the border between California and Nevada. 

A rapid expansion of data centres on the Nevada side is placing pressure on a power grid shared with communities in California, threatening electricity supply for thousands of residents who had no say in those developments.

It’s a timely reminder that energy customers will wear the costs – in one way or another – if we don’t all work together in getting this right.

Another critical piece of the transition puzzle that we must also get right is EV charging.

The question is not whether we need more charging infrastructure. We clearly do – and last month’s EV sales numbers underscore the urgency. 

The question is what role network businesses should play in supporting that infrastructure over the long term. 

We are considering three rule change proposals that go to that question. 

Two of them will be progressed alongside the first package of our Electricity Network Regulation Review – which I’ll come to shortly. 

I recognise there are many strong and opposing views here. In fact a senior stakeholder described it eloquently as a case of dueling banjos.

Retailers, charge point operators, distribution businesses, governments and the many different categories of consumers, see this question from different angles. 

We don’t want to crowd out competition. But we also don’t want to let gaps in charging infrastructure become a handbrake on EV uptake. 

So our role is to proactively manage this trade-off, so consumers get the charging infrastructure they need, without paying more than they should. The banjos may not end up playing in unison but hopefully at least in harmony.

We’re also in the final stages of a separate rule change to improve the visibility of the distribution network. 

We have proposed a new data reporting framework for distribution network businesses, as well as a new distribution network development plan. 

Better and more accessible data can help identify the areas where local energy solutions – like public EV charging or community batteries – will provide the most value.

It can also help with more targeted decisions about whether network upgrades are genuinely needed – and where non-network solutions could deliver a better outcome. 

It all goes to a broader point – that the traditional roles of networks – both at a distribution and transmission level – are changing profoundly. 

Those changes are being driven by technology, government policy and the individual decisions of millions of households and businesses. 

That creates enormous opportunities for consumers and the broader economy. 

But as we know, network costs account for up to half of an average power bill. So there are real risks if the incentives, obligations and planning frameworks do not keep pace. 

That is why it is the right time to begin our Electricity Network Regulation Review. And we will release a Consultation paper for the first phase shortly.

We recognise these frameworks were designed for a different time. The review gives us an opportunity to work with stakeholders on how those frameworks need to evolve – so networks can support the next phase of the transition – while delivering the best long-term value for consumers.

And as this very important review begins, another comes to an end. 

Next week we will release the final recommendations for the Pricing Review. 

It’s been two years in the making at the AEMC. And it’s the most high-profile piece of work I’ve been involved in as Chair. 

I am so grateful to everyone - and there are many of you - who have travelled with us on this journey.

The final report is a product of that deep collaboration, and I’m truly proud of where we’ve landed.

I’ll get to some of its details, but I want to first remind everyone why we embarked on this journey. 

Because again, it comes back to bringing the sector together on a hotly contested issue. And electricity pricing, of course, has serious risks to consumers if it’s not made simpler. 

And I’ll give you a personal example.

As Chair of the AEMC, you’d think I’m unusually well placed to find the right electricity plan for my own house.

Recently, my husband and I were looking at installing a home battery. So I did what many do. I tried to compare plans, understand the different rates, work out how the battery would interact with our usage, and make sense of what it would mean for our bill.

There’s a lot to consider. It was complex. And very time consuming.

Eventually, I narrowed it down and spoke to a very helpful customer service agent at a retailer that had a number of possible options, who helped me understand which one worked best. 

I should add that I did not tell him what my day job was.

My experience should highlight the frustration your average pensioner, time-poor parent, or just poor student feels when they try to navigate this complexity to save money. 

We have heard from them throughout this review. Many don’t feel confident understanding the offers presented, and comparison tools often fail to make decisions easier, particularly for households with solar and EVs.

We know they too often stay on unsuitable deals or disengage altogether. 

So at its core, the final report next week will be about making electricity simpler.

And it’s in that spirit of simplicity, that I want to talk to you about, milk. 

Like all products you buy at the supermarket, there are lots of different input costs. 

Milk comes from a farm. Somebody had to milk the cow. Someone else put it in a carton. Then another had to deliver it to the supermarket. And of course, somebody must maintain that supermarket.

All of this gets wrapped up into a simple price of milk when you go and buy it.

You still get plenty of different types of milk to choose from. And there are still price signals attached to your choices. 

Electricity is the same. It's just that we spend an awful lot of time talking about the input costs in a way that we don't for other products. 

Again, it’s partly due to the changing nature of how we use networks. In the old days - like 15 years ago - it was pretty simple - when electricity went one way and the amount of energy you used was a reasonable way of thinking about how much network you used. 

But the way we use that fixed infrastructure has changed so dramatically, that to get the best out of it, we need to change the charging structure. 

And rather than consumers being forced to understand demand charges, export charges, time-of-use windows and locational signals to get the best deal – we want to make their experience more like buying milk.

So today, I can reveal that one of our final recommendations will be to enact rules that shift the complexity away from households and onto retailers and other energy service providers.

These groups can work in the background to manage customer risk and bundle all the different input costs into simple, clear plans that work for different households. 

As I said earlier, our stakeholders challenged us to be bold. And I personally believe this is our most radical recommendation.

Because for years we have tried to use network tariffs to send signals through to customers, with the aim of keeping the costs of the network down by avoiding future spending. 

And what we have seen is that sometimes those signals don’t reach customers at all, because they were absorbed or repackaged by retailers. 

And sometimes they do reach customers, but in a form that people find confusing or impossible to respond to. 

So put simply: this recommendation is still about designing network tariffs to help keep network costs down. 

The difference is that we’re putting the complexity where the capability is and letting retailers and energy service providers translate those costs into simple, usable offers for their customers. 

Some customers will be willing to take on more risk, or let technology respond on their behalf, in exchange for lower bills. When that flexibility helps avoid unnecessary system costs, they should share in the benefits.

Others will want simplicity. Certainty. A plan they can understand. And that should also be available. 

Now of course, this recommendation is closely tied to our other draft proposal on network pricing reform that received the most attention. 

This is an area we have heard a lot about from stakeholders in how it could be done. We’ll unveil where we landed and what it means next week. But I want to make a few things clear about what it won’t mean. 

First, the final recommendations will be just that – recommendations. We will still need to receive rule change requests to consider each of them further, before any actual rules can be changed. 

So electricity tariffs won’t change next week. And no one will experience large, sudden price increases as a result of these reforms at any stage.

Second, this is not about protecting networks from disruption. It’s about making better use of CER and other technologies to help avoid unnecessary network overbuilds that get passed onto consumers.

And finally, the interests of consumers who have invested in CER under the current arrangements will be respected.

We have also done a lot of thinking about how to deliver new benefits to reward flexibility, which will be particularly well suited to home battery owners, and we will say more about that in the final report.

The best way to think about this package is as a roadmap. If enacted the reforms would be implemented gradually - over the next decade - to suit a future world. Instead of the current arrangements gradually becoming more costly and confusing, and much harder to unwind.

That’s why I think the usual “winners and losers” framing here misses the bigger point. 

Of course, we need to think deeply about unintended consequences – and the final report will make clear that we have. 

But nobody I’ve spoken to believes that the problems we have identified aren’t real. And inaction in dealing with them has a much bigger cost. 

Inaction means we ALL lose in the future. 

So to close, I know that everything I’ve spoken about today feels hard. It is. 

But it’s also worth doing. 

We must meet people where they are, to try to address their immediate concerns. 

But we can’t lose sight of the bigger picture and shy away from complex, forward-thinking reform. 

It’s our job at the AEMC to bring together diverse perspectives to debate critical issues. 

But at the end of the day, we must also get results. 

We have a real opportunity – right now - to get practical results on some very critical issues. 

It’s about giving Australians more control and better choices in this transition. To empower them to take advantage of change, rather than consumers feeling as though change is happening to them. 

Thank-you.