We have published a call for input, which explains why we are undertaking this review now and sets out the proposed scope and approach for the review. We are asking stakeholders for their views to help us refine the review’s scope, identify priority issues and develop draft changes to the guidelines.
Call for input
Call for Input - ring-fencing and shared asset guideline review
Content type
Document
Stakeholder workshops
The AER held stakeholder workshops in July to discuss the issues outlined in the call for input, and for stakeholders to share evidence and operational insights.
We have published the stakeholder workshop slide pack, individual workshop stakeholder summaries and responses to questions taken on notice. We thank stakeholders for their time and sharing valuable insights.
AER - Stakeholder workshop slide pack - Review of ring-fencing guideline and shared asset guidelines
Content type
Document
AER - Workshop summary of stakeholder feedback – Government and consumers
Content type
Document
AER - Workshop summary of stakeholder feedback – Contestable service providers unrelated to networks
Content type
Document
AER - Workshop summary of stakeholder feedback - Networks and their related entities
Content type
Document
AER - Questions taken on notice - Review of ring-fencing guideline & shared asset guideline workshops
Content type
Document
Consultation
-
Consultation on the call for input will close on Wednesday 6 August 2026. Stakeholders are encouraged to provide their feedback via the call for input submission form. Stakeholders may provide their views via this form at any point during the consultation period.
We recognise that there are other, related reform processes underway, including the Australian Energy Market Commission’s Electricity Network Regulation Review and related rule change proposals that would change what services DNSPs are allowed to provide. The AER is considering carefully how to align the scope and timing of our review with these processes.
Where issues can be addressed through changes to the guidelines, we propose to progress them through this review; where issues are better addressed through rules, service classification or other broader regulatory settings, we will seek to complement and support those external processes.