Should regional communities receive electricity discounts in the energy transition?

For many rural and regional communities, the shift to renewables brings not just opportunity, but disruption, uncertainty and real questions about fairness.

These are the same communities that have long borne the brunt of climate impacts – often facing floods, droughts and fires with limited resources. Now, they’re being asked to host wind farms, solar arrays, transmission corridors and battery hubs. And while the conversation focuses on gigawatts and emissions targets, many regional communities are asking something more fundamental: what’s in it for us?

Against this backdrop, it’s clear that public appetite for renewable energy is growing. The United Nations 2024 Peoples’ Climate Vote found that seven in ten people worldwide want their countries to move to clean energy quickly, including in major fossil fuel-producing nations. In total, 85 percent of countries surveyed backed a rapid transition.

In Australia, the pattern is similar. Contrary to common narratives, regional Australians are not resisting renewables. Porter-Novelli’s Winds of Change report shows that 67 percent of Australians - urban and regional - support renewable energy projects including in their own communities.

This support reflects both climate awareness and lived experience. Many regional Australians, particularly farmers, have long faced the realities of a warming climate. Their backing for renewables is pragmatic: an opportunity for lower energy bills, job creation and local resilience.

But support isn’t the same as acceptance. Poorly planned or poorly explained projects can erode goodwill quickly.

According to GHD’s SHOCKED report, 65 percent of energy leaders in Australia cite community opposition as a major barrier to project approvals. Many communities feel they’re engaged late, heard lightly and rewarded inconsistently.

In some jurisdictions, benefit-sharing is formally regulated. In others, it’s left to developer discretion. The result? A patchwork of expectations and outcomes and a growing trust deficit.

Globally, this isn’t unique. In Europe, at least 10 countries now use formal benefit-sharing models, from tax redistribution and co-ownership to local rebates and community investment funds. These mechanisms vary, but the trend is clear: trust grows where benefits are visible and fair.

Electricity discounts are one option. But they’re not the only one, and rarely the most important. Some communities want jobs. Others want co-investment or environmental restoration. For many, it’s not about the size of the benefit but the fairness of the process.

There’s a long-standing assumption that if a project is good for the grid, it must be good for the region. But that overlooks the lived complexity of rural life. Communities want a say in what happens around them and a share in what’s gained.

The key is early, honest engagement. Asking communities what matters to them should be the starting point, not a late-stage box-tick.

A frequent question I hear is: Why here? Why not build it somewhere else?

The short answer is economics. Infrastructure tends to follow existing grid connections. Long transmission lines are expensive, so projects often concentrate where grid access already exists.

But that technical logic doesn’t always translate locally. Communities see towers near paddocks, changes to views and few direct benefits. That’s why transparency matters. Communities deserve clear answers about why they’re being asked to host, and what they stand to gain in return.

In many regions, residents are facing “consultation fatigue.” Multiple developers arrive with similar questions, but different promises. Engagement feels fragmented. Confusion and frustration grow.

We need better coordination across developers, agencies and regulators. Especially in project hotspots, cumulative impacts should be considered - not just one project at a time.

Trust builds when engagement is efficient, consistent and respects people’s time and insights.

The energy transition could be genuinely transformational for regional communities but only if they are treated as partners, not just hosts.

This requires a cultural shift as much as a regulatory one. Communities are not just “stakeholders.” They are rights-holders and knowledge-holders. They understand their landscapes deeply and they know what needs protecting and what’s possible.

If we embed those insights early - in planning, design, delivery, and legacy - we not only build better projects. We build stronger regions.

There’s no universal answer to what fair benefit looks like. But there are shared principles: engage early, listen well, share transparently and design with place - not just performance - in mind.

Electricity discounts may be one solution. But the deeper opportunity is to build trust through genuine partnership. If we get that right, the regions won’t just host the transition. They’ll lead it with purpose and pride.