The New Energy Tech Consumer Code has been examined by an independent reviewer for the first time, three years after the program launched. The final report, prepared by PATHMAKER in partnership with grids and dated June 2026, was published by the NETCC on 12 August 2026. It contains ten recommendations and a conclusion that the code is being asked to carry more than it was built to carry.
The review was commissioned through the NETCC Code Monitoring and Compliance Panel. Its evidence base was the code's own compliance, audit and complaints records, together with consultation that produced 64 survey responses, 17 interviews, four deep-dive sessions and two workshops across consumers, Approved Sellers, regulators, ombudsmen and consumer advocates.
Changing market conditions
The review's overall finding is that the code is effective in principle and delivering measurable benefits in practice, having lifted standards across sales conduct, disclosure and customer service, and having established a national benchmark in a fragmented market.
Its central conclusion is about position rather than performance. The code was conceived as a voluntary industry uplift mechanism. It now operates as an integrated component of consumer protection infrastructure, particularly where participation is tied to government incentive programs. In the review's assessment, that shift has raised expectations of the code without a matching change in its mandate, its capability or its place in the system.
Two figures carry that argument. As at June 2026 the code covered approximately 2,020 Approved Sellers across Australia. Reported complaints rose from 168 in 2023 to 445 in 2025, growth the review attributes to both the larger pool of Approved Sellers and the expansion of the consumer energy resources market itself.
- 1Complaints in 2023168 complaints
- 2Increase across two years+277 complaints
- 3Complaints in 2025445 complaints
The increase of 277 complaints is derived from the two reported annual totals. Complaint volume and the number of Approved Sellers are separate measures and are not plotted on one axis.
Data table
| Measure | Value | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Complaints in 2023 | 168 complaints | Reported |
| Increase across two years | 277 complaints | Derived |
| Complaints in 2025 | 445 complaints | Reported |
WA trading requirements
The review's observation that the code is now tied to government incentive programs is not abstract in this state. Since 1 October 2025, accreditation to the WA Residential Battery Scheme has required the vendor to be an Approved Seller under the code. A vendor either holds that status when it applies or commits to obtaining it within three months of becoming an Accredited Vendor, on proof of application. Energy Policy WA publishes the requirement, and the scheme administrator applies it at accreditation.
That makes the governance of the code a condition of trading under the scheme rather than a voluntary credential, which is the shift the review describes at a national level and the reason its recommendations are worth reading in full here.
A second process is running alongside the review and is often confused with it. The code's authorisation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is being renewed. The ACCC issued a draft determination on 28 May 2026 proposing to grant authorisation with conditions for five years, and took submissions to 25 June 2026. A draft determination is a proposal rather than a decision.
Governance constraints
The review identifies governance as the most significant structural limit on what the code can achieve. Roles are defined, but the arrangements are found to lack the clarity, authority and strategic focus needed for consistent and forward-looking decisions. The practical consequence recorded is that the code tends to react rather than anticipate.
Compliance and administration are described as under increasing pressure, with systems and processes that have not scaled alongside the growth in participants and cases. The review notes the code relies heavily on a complaints-driven model, which limits early identification of risk. Financial and operational performance is assessed as requiring priority action, against legacy systems and rising case complexity.
Stakeholder engagement is treated more favourably, rated as a demonstrated strength with established processes and broad participation, though the review records that feedback loops are not consistently visible and that the clarity and timeliness of guidance to Approved Sellers varies.
Ten recommendations
The review presents its recommendations as ten interrelated priorities rather than a ranked list:
- Clarifying the code's strategic role and system positioning, including its relationship to regulators and government programs.
- Strengthening its value as a best-practice industry standard, repositioning it to recognise high-performing participants rather than minimum compliance alone.
- Enhancing alignment with government and regulatory frameworks through formal engagement and information sharing.
- Establishing a sustainable and scalable operating model, including a review of funding arrangements and governance oversight.
- Reinvesting in systems and operational processes to reduce administrative burden and improve efficiency.
- Transitioning to a data-led and proactive compliance model capable of identifying emerging risks earlier.
- Strengthening compliance, audit and assurance functions, including audit capacity and transparency of outcomes.
- Improving consumer awareness and trust, which the review finds is currently low enough to limit the code's effect.
- Simplifying and strengthening consumer redress pathways, including alignment with ombudsman and regulatory processes.
- Managing emerging risks and future scope, with criteria to guide what the code should and should not cover.
Approval and enforcement
For a business already holding Approved Seller status, the second and seventh recommendations are the ones with commercial consequence. Repositioning the code as a differentiated benchmark that recognises high performers, rather than a common floor, would change what the badge signals to a buyer. Strengthening audit capacity and publishing outcomes more transparently would change how often that status is tested and how visible the result is.
The sixth recommendation points the same way. A data-led compliance model examines the record rather than waiting for a complaint, which shifts the burden toward businesses whose documentation and process discipline can withstand inspection without notice.
The eighth recommendation records the counterweight. The review finds consumer awareness of the code low enough to limit its market effect, which means the value an Approved Seller gets from the status today depends heavily on the seller explaining it.
Review implementation
No obligation on Approved Sellers has altered, and no implementation timeline has been published. The NETCC Council will consider the recommendations and determine implementation priorities, and the Clean Energy Council as program Administrator will prepare an implementation plan for approved changes, with progress reported through Council communiqués.
PSW Energy and Perth Solar Warehouse hold separate NETCC Approved Seller certificates, each expiring in May 2027. Current standing for any seller is held on the NETCC Approved Seller register rather than on a certificate.
The complaints trajectory the review documents was already visible in the code's own reporting, and its consequences for system advice and installation quality were set out in an earlier record of compliance pressure under the federal battery program.
The full report is published by the NETCC at newenergytech.org.au/2026-review (opens in a new tab).
