Australians Want Control Over Their Home Energy Future, But Cost And Trust Stand In The Way, Monash Research Says

Australians are being asked to take a more active role in the country’s energy transition by purchasing electric vehicles, installing home batteries and shifting their electricity use to times when renewable energy is abundant.

But new research from Monash University has found that growing uncertainties around the cost of living, job security and cybersecurity are making it harder for many households to participate in the way the energy sector is proposing.

The report, Foresights for Future Australian Home Life, is part of the broader Scenarios for Future Living project. It draws on ethnographic home visits to 42 households across Australia involving 49 people, and a national survey of more than 5,000 respondents.

Researchers visited people in their homes to understand how they live with energy technologies, how they feel about emerging systems like smart appliances and electric vehicles, and what they expect from the future. The study was led by Monash University in partnership with UNSW, UTS and CSIRO, with funding from RACE for 2030 CRC.

The report identifies six “foresighting values” that the energy sector will need to account for when planning ahead: trust, control, safety, care, inclusivity and uncertainty.

The Director of the Emerging Technologies Research Lab and Professor of Design at Monash University, Sarah Pink, described these values as a way of centring household concerns in energy planning that are frequently overlooked.

“Households will have a big say in shaping Australia’s energy future, but our research shows their concerns are frequently missing from the conversation,” she wrote.

A ‘wait and see’ approach to electric vehicles

Despite growing pressure to shift away from fossil fuel vehicles, the research found a widespread “wait and see” approach to electric vehicle ownership, driven by cost, limited charging infrastructure and doubts about the technology’s readiness for everyday Australian life.

Of the 49 people who participated in the ethnographic study, only two currently owned an EV. Many expressed interest in principle but pointed to affordability and practicality as reasons to hold off.

Survey data reinforced the divide. Intentions to purchase an EV rose with income, from 4 per cent among those earning less than $40,000 a year to 22 per cent among those earning more than $241,000.

Among younger Australians aged 18 to 44, 53 per cent indicated interest in future EV ownership. But among those aged 65 to 74, only 3 per cent currently owned one and 69 per cent had no plans to buy one. EV use was highest among mortgaged homeowners at 12 per cent and lowest among renters at 5 per cent.

A renter in Tasmania, Liza, put it bluntly: “I think it’s a great idea but they’re so bloody expensive. Like who can afford to buy a brand new electric car? I’d love to but financially, it’s just out of reach.”

Wendy, an ACT resident, observed a similar gap between aspiration and affordability: “I feel like saying Canberra is the Tesla town. Everywhere you look, there’s a Tesla. People here may be able to afford electric cars, but I don’t know, well, I can’t, but how are people going to afford these new technologies?”

Many participants preferred hybrid vehicles as a transitional option, viewing them as more practical, more affordable and safer in emergencies.

“I think hybrid, in a way, like, EVs will be in the future, but I think at the moment, I will go with hybrid,” said Aiesh, a Victorian participant. “Because at the moment, you know, there is not too much mileage and charging stuff and things like that.”

William, also from Victoria, shared the view that Australia is not yet ready: “I think we don’t have enough technology, charging stations, that sort of thing to really support everyone getting electric… It is still quite expensive. I don’t think Australia is quite there yet. Maybe in the future.”

Others flagged safety concerns tied to Australia’s geography and climate. Andrew, from South Australia, pointed out: “It’s probably a legitimate concern having to race out in a bushfire in the middle of the night and the car’s not charged.”

Diana, a Queenslander who prefers a petrol car, added: “If the electricity went out for a week, you couldn’t charge it, couldn’t go anywhere. With petrol, you might still have enough to get places.”

The report also found that the 2026 fuel crisis had not prompted participants to shift toward EVs. Instead, they associated the crisis with increased household costs rather than a reason to go electric. None of the study’s participants had purchased an EV as a result of the fuel crisis.

Renters and apartment dwellers face particular structural barriers. Tracey, a Queenslander living in an apartment complex, described being blocked by body corporate costs: “There’s no hybrid plug-in points here in the building at all… [Someone] was asking and wanted to put one in and it was going to cost us about $45,000, the body corporate. So we said, no, we wouldn’t do it.”

Jean, from the ACT, illustrated the gap between ambition and affordability: “Being practical. I’ll drive [a petrol car] another four or five years… My daughter-in-law has just bought an electric car, and I think it cost $65,000… I would be looking at a car under $10,000.”

Smart home reluctance and cybersecurity fears

The study found broad wariness about smart home technologies, with many participants viewing them as unreliable, intrusive or vulnerable to hacking.

The national survey revealed that 84 per cent of respondents wanted to retain some form of control or override over smart appliances. Of those, 29 per cent wanted full control, 28 per cent were happy with a manual override option and 17 per cent would not use smart systems at all. Only 12 per cent preferred full automation without an override.

William captured the sentiment: “I haven’t done any of the smart home stuff yet. Do I want it? I don’t know. It’s always got fallacies and breakdowns in it. Hadn’t been proven totally to me yet.”

He described his reluctance as being about maintaining agency: “I like the idea of having control. Don’t like to give control [to digital technologies].”

Participants described an expanded threat landscape that includes hacking, phishing, surveillance by drones and data breaches. Several expressed concern that connecting more household devices to the internet creates more entry points for bad actors.

Elizabeth, from Western Australia, warned: “Hackers are everywhere. We all get emails every day. And the more you put everything into that [digital technologies], the more your whole house could be completely run by someone else.”

Mitzy, from Victoria, raised privacy concerns about always-connected devices: “Whatever you and I are talking, I am sure someone is listening, so this is directly linked to your privacy. It can be used against you.”

Fathima, a Victorian, described downloading an app for her dishwasher before reconsidering: “Like, my dishwasher’s got this thing that you can do from your phone. I downloaded that, then I thought about it, and I’m like, no, I don’t want it. Just use the physical button, and then I just uninstalled the app.”

The fears extend to connected devices marketed for families. Andrew flagged concerns about smart speakers: “I guess there’s a lot of concerns about people hacking into those things and talking to the kids. So, I would be sceptical about that.”

Aiesh highlighted the proliferation of apps as a risk: “If you have an app… and then notifications which are important, so I think we can do it by ourselves. They are in-purchase apps, mostly. So you have to pay them as well… there are so many hackers online which are waiting for you to just click, so they can, you know, hack your account.”

Trust is circumstantial, not transactional

One of the report’s central arguments is that trust in energy systems and technologies is not a stable commodity that companies can earn and bank. Instead, trust is circumstantial, shaped by people’s life situations, past experiences and shifting priorities.

The researchers argue that attempts to “win” trust in order to encourage people to relinquish control to automated or AI systems are likely to be futile. Trust needs to be created through the right circumstances, not captured from consumers.

The report identifies a continuum of trust ranging from people comfortable with full automation to those who insist on manual control of every system. In between sit those whose trust is contingent on specific conditions being met, such as cybersecurity guarantees or the ability to override automated decisions.

Liza, from Tasmania, articulated the desire for consent-based control: “I’d still want to give consent… because then I can’t blame anyone but myself if there’s a mistake. I suppose not quite trusting technology completely to get it right.”

Bill, from New South Wales, described himself as cautious rather than opposed: “I’m not against automation. I’m cautious. I’ve been in too many control rooms that automation has failed, and repairs have to be done. I’m not overconfident that automation can match the human being in some of those decision making processes.”

The Professor of Digital Technology and Society at Monash’s Emerging Technologies Research Lab, Yolande Strengers, noted that the relationship between trust and control will vary for different groups of people, and that energy services are likely to be more effective when they work with people’s existing practices rather than seeking to replace them through full automation.

Data breaches shaping energy attitudes

For some participants, personal experience of data breaches has fundamentally shaped their willingness to engage with connected energy technologies.

Jane, a Victorian in her 40s who lives alone and works from home, described having a “total lack of trust” of technology following the Optus data breach.

“Do you remember the Optus breach a couple of years ago? I was one of the people that had their passport, driver’s licence, and Medicare card leaked by Optus,” she recalled. “I made a statement for all the class actions, because someone tried to take out multiple loans in my name, using those leaked documents.”

The experience has made her wary of any form of automation or handing control of household energy to third parties. She is not interested in automating household technologies or giving an AI assistant control of her excess energy. She believes keeping control and providing limited trust to essential technologies is more appealing for her future home.

The report notes that concerns about data security, including those stemming from the Origin Energy breach that affected approximately 900,000 customers, have shaped broader attitudes toward energy company data handling and willingness to participate in programs such as virtual power plants.

Data centres, AI and where excess energy goes

The question of where excess household energy ends up raised moral considerations for some participants, particularly in the context of the growing energy demands of data centres.

Jesse, from Victoria, expressed concern about what happens when households are asked to contribute their excess solar to the grid while data centres consume energy at scale.

“When you see overseas the massive amount of energy that data centres are using, I worry that if that happens here, then yeah, there might not be enough to go around,” he explained. “If an energy company’s like, oh, let us take your excess power, we’ll choose where it goes, I would have, like, almost a moral obligation to not do that if there was, like, a massive demand from data centres.”

Some participants expressed a preference for community-based energy sharing over giving control to large corporations or automated systems.

Luna, from Western Australia, argued for keeping the economics local: “Probably, a community sharing scheme is a way of keeping a circular economy, because then if we’re paying for that management system, at least that money is staying within the community rather than, you know, an external potentially international company.”

When it came to AI managing energy on their behalf, views were divided. Some participants trusted AI more than energy companies because they saw it as something that could be personalised to their household rather than operating on a one-size-fits-all model.

Elizabeth, from Western Australia, preferred AI to energy companies: “I don’t trust companies like energy companies, telecommunications companies, or insurance companies, I think they’re more evil than AI.”

She imagined AI could learn her household’s patterns: “I would probably rather AI… because you could dictate what suits you, whereas an energy company would be this one-size-fits-all kind of model… AI would be better suited to study to learn what we use. Instruct us to cut down, within reason.”

But others remained sceptical. Diana questioned: “With the AI, what happens if that breaks down? Where’s the universe going to be then?”

Myriam, from Queensland, offered a conditional endorsement: “I can definitely see there would be more automation, AI being able to do more things for you, if it could save me time I could be up for it. If it works and it’s safe, and not going to breach data, I’m all for it.”

Inequality compounding the barriers

The report highlights how economic vulnerability, disability and housing tenure compound to exclude some Australians from the energy transition entirely.

Of the 42 households visited, 14 reported experiencing energy hardship. Twelve participants identified as having a disability, including neurodiversity such as ADHD and autism, which shapes how people relate to their homes and energy systems.

Vlastimil, an older Victorian, was surviving on handouts from his daughter and feared losing everything. “I will have to get rid of everything I have and sleep in the car, because, you know, she’s the one who is supporting me,” he said. For someone facing the prospect of his petrol car becoming his home, the idea of EV ownership is not a consideration.

Hannah, a renter in Victoria, described the compounding pressure of rising costs and unstable rental conditions: “You’re watching the prices of everything increase rapidly. And they keep changing all the rental laws.”

Glenn, from New South Wales, described wanting to install solar as a renter but being unable to do so through legitimate channels: “If I had a spare 10 grand, easy, give me 10 grand, and I would illegally install solar panels here until they tell me to take them down and say they’re illegally installed. I’d do it.”

Alex, in Victoria, struck a more hopeful but still cautious note: “Hoping that we could have a house in two years… making that as environmentally friendly as possible… it’s easy to put solar panels… obviously it’s a cost, but you put them up and then they pay for themselves.”

The survey found that the majority of renters at 52 per cent and those in government-assisted, social or affordable housing at 64 per cent did not have access to air conditioning. Residents in cooperative housing at 68 per cent and aged care settings at 61 per cent faced similar limitations. Households facing climate risks, hardship or both were more concerned about the air quality inside their homes than those without these challenges.

Planning for uncertain futures

The report argues that the energy sector needs to stop treating household engagement as a straightforward adoption curve and instead account for the diverse and compounding uncertainties people face.

Its six foresighting values are designed to inform a set of energy scenarios being developed as part of the Scenarios for Future Living project.

The implications include ensuring that energy services provide meaningful options over levels of automation, data sharing and manual override rather than pushing for full automation.

“To enable people to trust in situations of uncertainty they need to feel in control,” the report states. “This means allowing them to use their own proven expertise and judgement to manage their homes and energy systems.”

The researchers argue that energy services are likely to be more effective when they work with people’s existing practices rather than seeking to replace them through full automation, and that providing resilient systems and supporting localised storage and backup options will be critical to ensuring participation in the energy transition.

“Care for themselves and others underpins how people use energy in their homes, for heating, cooling, cooking and laundry, and also impacts on the timing and flexibility of when those activities can be performed,” the report states.

The full Foresights for Future Australian Home Life report is available on the Monash University website.

Last Updated on September 30, 2026 by Nick Ross