Need to know
- In May we filed a designated complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about energy retailers' dubious pricing tactics
- We also called out one of these tactics - giving new energy plans the same names as existing ones - in a Shonky for the industry given earlier this month
- Victoria's Essential Services Commission will implement new rules preventing retailers from confusing customers by naming cheaper plans the same as more expensive ones
When CHOICE handed the entire energy retailer industry a Shonky earlier this month, one of the issues we called out was the practice of continuingly rolling out new cheaper energy plans with the same names as existing ones.
We call this same-name messaging, and it results in customers remaining on energy plans they mistakenly believe to be the cheapest ones available from their retailer. The problem is that they're on an earlier version of the plan in which prices have gone up.
The retailer would have been obligated to prompt them on their energy bill to switch to the newer version, but since it had the same name as their existing plan, customers understandingly assumed they were already on it. We thought the systemic use of this and other confusing pricing tactics was not only shonky-worthy, but possibly illegal.
The customers we reviewed missed out on an average of $171 in annual savings
We also focused on this issue in our designated complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about energy retailers, filed in May.
The complaint included our analysis of energy bills sent in by CHOICE supporters. Many of them had 'best offer' or 'better offer' messages for plans with the same names as the ones the customers were already on.
By not somehow figuring out that these were actually new plans and switching to them, the customers we reviewed missed out on an average of $171 in annual savings. In one case, the savings would have been as high as $588 a year.
We estimated the total annual cost to consumers of same-name messaging at around $65 million.
Around 360,000 Victorians unknowingly paying more
Victoria's Essential Services Commission (ESC), which regulates energy retailers in the state, took note of our ACCC complaint and did its own research.
According to the ESC, around 360,000 Victorians are on older, more expensive versions of plans that have a cheaper alternative with the same name. The average customer would save up to $430 per year if they switched.
In some cases, less than 25% of customers in Victoria are on the newest, cheapest version of a same-name energy plan. And of the ten most popular household energy plans in the state, six have cheaper earlier versions with the same name.
In some cases, less than 25% of customers in Victoria are on the newest, cheapest version of a same-name energy plan
Similar to other jurisdictions, energy retailers in Victoria have to communicate their best offers to customers with every energy bill or price-change notification. But when the best offer has the same name as an existing one this regulation doesn't really work.
This is why the ESC is putting new regulations in place. As of October 2026, energy retailers in Victoria will be required to clearly distinguish between different plans on better-offer messages, meaning they'll need to have different names or at least version numbers.
It's part of a suite of new energy rules coming into effect in Victoria, which will include the requirement (as of July 2026) that all customers on contracts older than four years be charged a reasonable price for their energy.
As of October 2026, retailers will also be required to automatically switch customers experiencing payment difficulty to their cheapest plan.
Energy costs are continually on the rise, yet retailers make it all but impossible to find and switch to a reliably cheaper plan.
Those who switch the least pay the most
"Some customers have been missing out on hundreds of dollars of savings per year by not switching to a cheaper plan with the same name," says ESC chairperson and commissioner Gerard Brody. "In the current climate, we know people are looking for ways to reduce costs."
We expect retailers to design systems and publish new offers that clearly identify different plans, making it easier for customers to switch
ESC chair and commissioner Gerard Brody
According to the ESC's calculations, customers who have been on the same energy plan for 10 years or more could save up to $950 a year if they switched. Customers on the same plan for two years or more could save up to $410 a year by finding a cheaper plan.
The lesson is clear – customers who have been loyal to their energy retailers the longest pay the highest bills. And giving new, cheaper plans the same names as existing more expensive ones makes finding a better deal that much harder.
"Same-name plans can be a significant barrier to switching to a retailer's cheapest plan," Brody says.
"The recently announced changes should remove this barrier and help customers identify cheaper plans. We expect retailers to design systems and publish new offers that clearly identify different plans, making it easier for customers to switch."
Consumers confusion and dodgy tactics
CHOICE senior campaigns and policy adviser Jordan Cornelius, who authored our energy retailer complaint to the ACCC, says the move by the ESC is a positive first step toward a fairer energy market.
"Our research found that many consumers are confused by same-name plans, so we're very glad that these new rules will help tackle this dodgy tactic. We'd like to see similar outcomes-focussed rules introduced in other parts of the country that put the responsibility on retailers to make the process of switching as clear and simple as possible," Cornelius says.
The expectation that people can, and should, be constantly hunting for a better energy deal is unrealistic
CHOICE senior campaigns and policy adviser Jordan Cornelius
"However, sneaky tactics like reusing plan names are a symptom of the broader, underlying unfairness in the retail energy market that leaves most consumers paying a 'loyalty penalty' for not switching plans as often as every few months."
"The expectation that people can, and should, be constantly hunting for a better energy deal is unrealistic – and households that are already doing it tough are likely to face the most barriers to doing so. Energy is an essential service, and everyone should be able to turn on the lights at a fair price."
We're on your side
For more than 60 years, we've been making a difference for Australian consumers. In that time, we've never taken ads or sponsorship.
Instead we're funded by members who value expert reviews and independent product testing.
With no self-interest behind our advice, you don't just buy smarter, you get the answers that you need.
You know without hesitation what's safe for you and your family. And our recent sunscreens test showed just how important it is to keep business claims in check.
So you'll never be alone when something goes wrong or a business treats you unfairly.
Learn more about CHOICE membership today
Stock images: Getty, unless otherwise stated.
