In every region where Solar Sharer operates, it costs more per year than the cheapest standard time-of-use plan on the market, by $420 to $445 a year, according to the regulator’s own 2026-27 rate caps. That’s before factoring in whether a household can actually use the free hours at all.
Solar Sharer offers three genuinely free hours of electricity in the middle of the day. But “free” for three hours doesn’t mean cheaper overall, and the numbers below show why it pays to check the maths before switching.
Quick Summary
- Across NSW, South East Queensland and South Australia, the Solar Sharer Offer costs 420-445 more per year than the cheapest standard time-of-use plan available, based on the AER’s own 2026-27 price caps.
- A household that doesn’t shift any usage into the free window can end up paying more per day on Solar Sharer than on a standard plan, even accounting for the free electricity.
- The gap narrows, and can reverse, only once a household shifts a meaningful chunk of daily usage into the free hours.
The three-region comparison
The Australian Energy Regulator caps what retailers can charge on Solar Sharer plans outside the free window. Comparing those capped rates against the cheapest standard time-of-use market offer available in each region shows a consistent pattern:
| Network | Region | Solar Sharer (annual) | Cheapest standard ToU plan | Difference |
| Ausgrid | NSW | $1,893 | $1,473 | +$420 |
| Energex | SE Queensland | $1,914 | $1,469 | +$445 |
| SA Power Networks | South Australia | $2,276 | $1,840 | +$436 |
These figures use the regulator’s own annual usage benchmark, so they represent a like-for-like comparison rather than one household’s actual bill. Individual retailer plans vary around these numbers, sometimes narrower, sometimes wider.
Expert Tip: These are benchmark comparisons, not your bill. Run your own postcode and usage through a comparison tool before deciding, since actual retailer plans can price above or below these regulated caps.
Why the gap exists even with free electricity
The maths comes down to timing. Consider a household using 20kWh a day split across off-peak, the midday window, and evening peak, on a standard market plan versus Solar Sharer, in Sydney on the Ausgrid network.
If that household doesn’t shift any of its usage differently between the two plans, a standard market offer can work out cheaper per day than Solar Sharer, because the standard plan’s peak rate is materially lower than Solar Sharer’s, even though Solar Sharer includes free power that the standard plan doesn’t. The higher fixed daily supply charge and steeper peak rate on Solar Sharer outweigh the value of the free hours if the household isn’t actively using them.
The picture flips once a household shifts even a modest amount of usage, say 5kWh, out of the evening peak and into the free midday window. At that point Solar Sharer can come out slightly ahead per day. The saving is real, but it’s narrow, and it depends entirely on actually moving usage, not just being connected to the plan.
Expert Tip: Before switching, check how much of your daily usage genuinely happens outside 9am-5pm, when most people are home. If most of your load is in the evening and can’t move, the free window won’t offset Solar Sharer’s higher peak rate.
The free window is smaller in practice than it sounds
Free electricity is capped at 24kWh a day, which the regulator describes as roughly a five-person household’s typical daily total. In practice, most households use closer to 10-20kWh a day across all appliances, and evening loads like heating, cooling and lighting can’t be shifted into the daytime window at all since nobody benefits from heating an empty house at 1pm.
The two realistic ways to actually use up the full 24kWh cap are a home battery large enough to fully charge within the window, or scheduled EV charging. Both require meaningful upfront investment, and the battery route in particular has a payback period measured in years, not months, once the battery’s own installation cost is factored in against the daily savings it generates. Households without a battery or EV are far less likely to meaningfully close the 420-445 annual gap shown above.
Where a battery changes the calculation
For households that already have, or are considering, a home battery, Solar Sharer’s economics look very different. A battery lets a household absorb close to the full 24kWh free window every day, rather than the 5kWh trickle a typical home can shift on its own by simply timing appliance use.
That’s the difference between narrowing the $420-$445 annual gap and turning it into a genuine saving. The mechanism is straightforward: the battery charges for free during the midday window, then discharges through the evening peak, when Solar Sharer’s rates are steepest. That means a battery isn’t just offsetting Solar Sharer’s higher peak rate, it’s actively avoiding it, since the household is drawing on stored free power instead of paying the plan’s peak rate at all.
This is also where the plan’s economics scale best with usage. A high-usage household with a battery, particularly one running an EV charger, a pool pump or ducted air conditioning, has the most daily load available to shift into the window and the most peak-rate exposure to avoid, so the annual saving compounds faster than for a low-usage household. The catch is the same one that applies to any battery purchase: the payback period is measured against the battery’s installation cost, not against Solar Sharer alone.
A battery bought purely to chase these savings needs to be sized to the household’s actual midday consumption and evening discharge pattern, not just bought to hit the 24kWh cap.
Households already planning a battery for backup power or existing solar export reasons are the ones best placed to add Solar Sharer’s free hours on top as a genuine bonus, rather than the primary justification for the purchase.
FAQs
Is Solar Sharer cheaper than a standard electricity plan? Not by default. Based on the regulator’s 2026-27 price caps, Solar Sharer costs $420 to $445 more per year than the cheapest standard time-of-use plan in NSW, SE Queensland and South Australia. It only becomes competitive once a household shifts meaningful usage into the free window.
How much usage do I need to shift to benefit from Solar Sharer? Even a modest shift, such as 5kWh of daily usage moved from evening peak into the midday window, can tip the daily cost in Solar Sharer’s favour. Larger shifts, typically only achievable with a battery or EV, are needed to meaningfully offset the plan’s higher supply charge and peak rate.
Can I use the full 24kWh free electricity cap? Most households can’t. Average daily usage is closer to 10-20kWh across all appliances, and loads like heating and cooling can’t be shifted into an empty daytime home. Fully using the cap generally requires a home battery or scheduled EV charging.
Does a home battery make Solar Sharer worth it? It can, but the numbers need to stack up. A battery large enough to fully use the free window has a payback period measured in years once its own installation cost is included, so it’s worth modelling against your specific usage before assuming it pays for itself through Solar Sharer alone.
Is Solar Sharer available outside NSW, SA and Queensland? Not yet in this exact form. Victoria’s separate Midday Power Saver scheme launches 1 October 2026 with its own free window and rate structure, distinct from the Solar Sharer Offer covered here.
Key Takeaways
- Solar Sharer costs 420-445 more per year than the cheapest standard time-of-use plan across NSW, SE Queensland and South Australia, based on the regulator’s own 2026-27 rate caps.
- Without shifting usage, a household can pay more per day on Solar Sharer than on a standard plan despite the free electricity.
- Shifting even a modest amount of usage into the free window can tip the balance in Solar Sharer’s favour, but the margin is narrow.
- The 24kWh daily cap is larger than most households actually use, so batteries and EVs are the main way to capture its full value.
- Compare your own postcode and usage pattern rather than relying on regional benchmark figures.
