Who Is Most at Risk in Australia’s Energy Transition?

Australia’s energy transition is often framed in terms of technology, infrastructure and emissions targets. But new national research suggests that who is affected — and how — deserves far more attention.

A 2025 report by the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA), authored by Sarah Bice and Dr Richard Parsons, examines vulnerability in Australia’s energy transition and identifies where people and communities may be most at risk of harm.

Rather than treating vulnerability as a fixed characteristic, the research frames it as dynamic and context-specific — shaped by personal circumstances, place, policy settings and the way decisions are made.

Vulnerability Goes Beyond ‘Vulnerable Groups’

The report defines vulnerability as the degree to which individuals or groups are susceptible to harm during the energy transition. Importantly, it cautions against simplistic labels.

Vulnerability can arise from a combination of factors, including income, health, housing security, location, access to services and inclusion in decision-making. These factors often overlap and change over time, meaning vulnerability is not static or evenly distributed.

This has implications for how energy projects, policies and programs engage with communities — particularly where assumptions are made about who is affected and who is not.

A Framework for Understanding Risk and Impact

To help clarify where vulnerability emerges, the report applies an internationally recognised framework that looks at three interacting dimensions:

• Exposure — the extent to which people or communities face energy-related risks, such as affordability pressures or economic disruption

• Sensitivity — how strongly those risks affect people, influenced by factors like housing security, health and access to energy

• Adaptive capacity — the ability to respond, adjust and build resilience, including through social cohesion and inclusion in decision-making

Together, these dimensions highlight that vulnerability is not just about outcomes, but about processes — including who is heard, when, and how.

Why Timing and Location Matter

The report also highlights that vulnerability is closely linked to where and when energy transition activities occur.

Regional transitions, infrastructure rollouts and changes to local economies can create uneven impacts across communities. Without careful planning and engagement, some groups may experience cumulative pressures — particularly where energy costs, employment change and limited housing options intersect.

Implications for Engagement in the Energy Sector

While the report is research-focused, its findings have clear relevance for community and stakeholder engagement across the energy sector.

Understanding vulnerability requires more than demographic profiling or late-stage consultation. It depends on early, inclusive engagement that captures local knowledge, lived experience and the ways people are affected differently by change.

The research reinforces that engagement is not just a communication task, but a critical mechanism for identifying emerging risks, building trust and supporting fairer outcomes as the transition accelerates.

Building a Fairer Transition

ACOLA’s report calls for stronger, coordinated research and policy attention on vulnerability to ensure the benefits of the energy transition are shared more equitably.

For those working at the intersection of energy, communities and decision-making, the message is clear: how vulnerability is understood — and whose voices inform that understanding — will shape the legitimacy and success of the transition itself.

Sources

• Australian Council of Learned Academies (2025), Vulnerability and Australia’s Energy Transition — Full report

• Australian Council of Learned Academies (2025), Vulnerability and Australia’s Energy Transition — Factsheet summary

• ACOLA, Powering Fairness: Evidence for an Inclusive and Just Energy Transition (webinar)