Australia’s EV charging debate keeps getting framed as an infrastructure gap. It’s actually a market design issue, and one we still have time to get right. 

The IEA’s 2026 Global EV Outlook puts Australia at 41 EVs per public charging point, against a global average of 11. That’s the headline stat. But fixating on it risks solving for the wrong variable. The real question for the sector is not how many chargers get built, rather who owns the sites and what competitive structure sits on top of them. 

The regulatory ask 

Energy Networks Australia has put a proposal to the AEMC: modernise the rules so DNSPs can install, own and maintain kerbside chargers as a regulated asset, using existing pole and wire infrastructure. Networks wouldn’t have retail electricity or charging services – that stays contestable. They’d provide the physical layer, and retailers/CPOs compete on top of it for customers. 

It’s a similar logic to open-access regimes in telecoms and gas – separate the natural-monopoly infrastructure layer from the competitive services layer, rather than letting one player vertically integrate both. 

The alternative is site-based competition, not customer-based competition 

Without that separation, the default model is vertically integrated CPOs competing for kerbside real estate. That looks competitive in the early build-out phase – multiple players, multiple apps, capital flowing in. But site-based competition tends to consolidate: whoever locks the best locations wins, smaller players get squeezed out, and the market converges toward a small number of controllers of physical access. 

At that point, competitive dynamics shift from price and service competition to location scarcity. It’s the freeway servo problem, applied to electrons: when there’s one practical option in range, that option sets the price. 

Why this shows up as a cost-of-living issue, not a network issue 

The numbers are worth having on hand for stakeholder conversations. Each additional 1 c/kWh adds roughly $22/year to the average EV driver’s charging cost. A 5–10 c/kWh premium at a locked-up kerbside site – plausible in a location-power scenario – compounds across millions of charging sessions.  

Not a bill-shock event, just a persistent tax on people who don’t have off-street parking: renters, apartment dwellers, lower-income households. The exact cohort EV savings are supposed to help. 

The deployment case is a strong one 

Separate from the fairness argument, there’s a straightforward capability case. Distribution networks already have the workforce, the asset base and the pole access to deploy at pace. In NSW, that’s up to 40 kerbside chargers per week, per distributor, at an estimated $1.60–$2.10 per customer per year – with better load-shape utilisation potentially easing downward pressure on broader network charges as EV uptake scales. 

That’s a materially different deployment curve than waiting on site-by-site commercial negotiations for every location. 

Where this lands 

This isn’t an argument against competition – it’s an argument about where competition should sit. Put it at the infrastructure layer and you get consolidation and location rent. Put it at the retail/service layer, on top of open-access infrastructure, and customers compete providers for their business on price and experience. 

The rules currently on the books predate mainstream EV uptake. The AEMC now has the chance to set the market structure before the site-acquisition land grab locks in a shape that’s hard to unwind. That’s the case being put to them: not more chargers as an end in itself, but a market architecture that keeps competition pointed at the customer. 

See our response to the NSW Legislative Committee on Transport and Infrastructure report on infrastructure for EVs here.