Best Solar Feed-in Tariffs by State and Territory

The best solar feed-in tariff in Australia is not one national winner. Feed-in tariff rules differ by state, and even where retailers compete freely, the highest export credit can still lose on the full annual bill if the import rate, supply charge or tariff structure is poor. A good solar comparison therefore starts with state rules and ends with the net bill, not with the feed-in tariff headline by itself.

Quick answer: what should solar households compare first?

Compare the feed-in tariff together with the import rate, daily supply charge, tariff structure and your actual export volume. Then apply the correct state rule. Victoria changed materially from 1 July 2025 because the Essential Services Commission no longer sets a minimum feed-in tariff. Queensland needs to be split between South East Queensland and regional Queensland. South Australia and New South Wales remain retailer-comparison markets where plan detail matters more than generic national rankings.

Why state-by-state feed-in tariff advice matters

A solar household in Melbourne is not operating under the same feed-in tariff framework as a household in Adelaide, Brisbane or Sydney. Victoria uses its own regulatory approach. South East Queensland is a deregulated retailer market, while regional Queensland has a Queensland Competition Authority pathway for solar feed-in tariff settings. South Australia sits inside the SA Power Networks retail market and is highly sensitive to time-of-use and solar-sharer tariff design.

That means a single national list of best solar tariffs can mislead readers unless it names the state rule and date checked.

Victoria changed sharply from 1 July 2025

Victoria is the clearest example of why stale solar articles cause bad decisions. The Essential Services Commission says that from 1 July 2025 it no longer sets a minimum solar feed-in tariff. Retailers now set their own feed-in tariffs in Victoria, but they cannot go below zero dollars per kWh.

That one rule change matters more than a lot of filler content. Before 1 July 2025, a Victorian solar article could lean on the idea of a regulated minimum. After 1 July 2025, that assumption is wrong. A Victorian customer has to compare current retailer plan documents directly, and a high advertised tariff deserves more scepticism if the import side of the plan is weak.

Queensland must be split in two

Queensland solar comparisons are unreliable when they treat the whole state as one market. South East Queensland is the deregulated retailer market where customers compare offers in the Energex distribution zone. Regional Queensland is different because the Queensland Competition Authority remains central to solar feed-in tariff settings there.

CompareUs' Queensland electricity page already separates these frameworks for plan comparison, and solar households need to do the same. A Brisbane, Gold Coast or Sunshine Coast customer should compare retailer offers. A regional Queensland customer should first check whether the relevant regulated or QCA-linked settings apply in their area before assuming a retailer list from Brisbane is relevant.

South Australia is a whole-bill solar market, not a feed-in-tariff beauty contest

South Australia has one of the strongest rooftop-solar cultures in the country, but that does not make the highest feed-in tariff automatically the best plan. CompareUs' South Australia market reference uses the SA Power Networks zone and lists 2026-27 residential benchmark prices of $2,334 on a flat tariff and $2,276 on time-of-use or solar-sharer settings for 4,000 kWh.

Those benchmark figures matter because they show how sensitive the state is to tariff structure. A plan with a premium export credit can still lose if it pairs that credit with a higher peak import rate from late afternoon into the evening, which is exactly when many solar homes need grid power again.

New South Wales solar households need postcode discipline

New South Wales has more than one distribution zone, and that matters for solar comparisons. Ausgrid, Endeavour Energy and Essential Energy customers do not face identical plan economics. A retailer can look competitive in Sydney and less competitive in regional NSW because the network context changes.

The practical method is to compare solar plans using the exact address and tariff type, then check the net annual bill. If a plan pays 2 cents per kWh more for exports and your home exports 8 kWh a day, that extra credit is about $58.40 a year. If the same plan charges 4 cents per kWh more for 8 kWh of daily imports, that costs about $116.80 a year. The higher feed-in tariff still loses.

The highest feed-in tariff often loses on the maths

This is the single most important editorial rule for solar content. A higher feed-in tariff does not automatically produce the lowest bill. The result depends on how much you export and how much you still import later.

A simple example makes the point. If Plan A pays 10 cents per kWh for exports and Plan B pays 7 cents per kWh, Plan A looks better at first glance. But if Plan A also charges 5 cents per kWh more for evening imports and your household imports more than it exports after sunset, Plan B can still be the cheaper yearly plan.

That is why CompareUs readers should use /electricity and /calculators/electricity-cost alongside any solar feed-in guide.

Battery homes should care less about feed-in tariff than solar-only homes

A battery changes the comparison because it stores part of the solar that would otherwise be exported. If the battery absorbs most midday generation and discharges into the evening, the home may export much less power. In that case, the feed-in tariff matters less and the import tariff matters more.

That does not make the feed-in tariff irrelevant. It means a battery household should compare the whole solar-plus-battery plan, not use the same logic as a solar-only home. This is why /guides/best-electricity-plans-for-solar-batteries is a better next read for battery owners than a feed-in-tariff list alone.

A state-by-state solar checklist that actually helps

In Victoria, confirm the current retailer tariff because there is no regulator-set minimum after 1 July 2025. In Queensland, split South East Queensland from regional Queensland before comparing. In South Australia, compare time-of-use and solar-sharer settings against the whole bill. In New South Wales, compare by distributor zone and exact address.

In every state, collect one recent bill, note your import kWh, export kWh, tariff type, meter type and daily supply charge. Then compare at least three plans on those same inputs. If the plan only looks good because it changes the assumptions, it is not a fair comparison.

Common mistakes in solar feed-in comparisons

The first mistake is chasing the highest export credit without checking the import rate. The second is ignoring state rules. The third is using a stale Victorian minimum-feed-in-tariff assumption after 1 July 2025. The fourth is treating regional Queensland like South East Queensland. The fifth is comparing solar-only logic with a battery home.

Next steps on CompareUs

Use /electricity to compare live electricity offers, /guides/best-solar-feed-in-tariffs-adelaide for South Australian context, /guides/best-electricity-plans-for-solar-batteries for battery homes, and state pages such as /electricity/vic, /electricity/qld, /electricity/sa and /electricity/nsw when local rules or benchmarks matter.

Sources and methodology

This guide uses current CompareUs electricity market references for Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, plus the Victorian rule change from 1 July 2025 and the Queensland split between SEQ and regional frameworks. It avoids publishing a fake national top 10 because feed-in-tariff value changes with state rules, import pricing, export volume and tariff type.