Victorians are also subject to aspects of the accelerating smart meter deployment rule change that affects customers in NSW, Qld, Tas, the ACT and SA. The rule change requires approximately 15-25% of analogue and older (noncommunicating) digital meters, which are referred to as legacy meters, to be replaced in each 1-year period beginning on 1 December 2025 through to the completion of the smart meter rollout on 30 November 2030.
This is manifestly unfair; customers in NSW, Qld, Tas, the ACT and SA have the option of having a Type 4A (commonly referred to as a MRAM meter in Tasmania) smart meter, which is a smart meter that has had its communications removed. The Victorian government has denied Victorians this choice.
The decision by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) to entangle Victorians in the push for 100% penetration is also curious given that Victoria’s rollout was completed in 2013.
Victorian distributors CitiPower, Powercor and United Energy also appeared surprised at the inclusion of Victoria in this rule change. In their legacy meter replacement plans to the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), which is tasked with the unenviable job of enforcing the AEMC’s, often ill-conceived, electricity rules, they write, ‘It was not expected that Victoria would be included in the rule change given we completed the smart meter rollout across the state in 2013, and we only have a small number of customers (0.6%) remaining that typically have refused meter exchanges or present site-specific challenges that have prevented earlier meter replacement’.
According to their 2025 legacy meter replacement plans submitted to the AER, Victorian electricity distributors reported the following volumes of legacy meters remaining: CitiPower (3,417), Powercor (4,276), United Energy (1,556), AusNet (4,110 active legacy meters), and Jemena (approximately 4,000).
All of the Victorians who have managed to retain their legacy meters have already been approached numerous times in a bid by Victorian distributors to replace their, generally much safer, meter with a smart meter.
In the early stages of Victoria’s rollout ‘strong-man’ tactics and trickery were often deployed by power distributors and their contractors in their keenness to meet deployment targets. For instance, in this post we reported about the case of an installer who was told to leave but went ahead anyway and installed a smart meter, whereupon the owner blocked the installer’s vehicle so he couldn’t leave and called the police. In this post, it was the power distributor who threatened to call the police if the owner objected to the installation.
This time round it appears that customers are to be treated with more respect. The legacy meter replacement plan (LMRP) clearly stipulates that its objective is:
‘The replacement of all legacy meters with type 4 metering installations (smart meters) in a timely, cost effective, fair and safe way during the LMRP Period’.
AS CitiPower, Powercor and United Energy’s LMRP submissions pointed out:
‘Efforts to achieve complete smart meter replacement in Victoria have consistently been challenged by a small number of customers who continue to oppose meter upgrades, primarily due to concerns about radiofrequency (RF) emissions or broader objections to smart meters. These cases often involve prolonged engagement cycles, multiple field visits, and refusal to allow safe access — resulting in disproportionate resource use for limited or no progress.
In several instances, customers have actively obstructed access to the meter, presented aggressive behaviour, or imposed conditions that compromise the safety of field staff. These situations create unacceptable safety risks and are inconsistent with the LMRP Objective to pursue legacy meter replacement where it is practicable and reasonable to do so. Additional replacement efforts in these cases would not represent an efficient use of resources and would not be timely given the minimal likelihood of success.
This experience reinforces the view that pursuing further activities to forcibly replace meters for remaining resistant customers would not be timely, cost-effective, fair and safe, consistent with the LMRP Objective. The rule change does not account for individual customer objections or the potential cost impacts experienced by customers as a result of meter replacement. Furthermore, the rule change does not provide any mechanism for customers to object or seek relief on this basis.’
AusNet, also, appears to have learnt from its past mistakes and wrote in its LMRP, ‘Whether it is replacing a smart meter with a new smart meter, or replacing a customer’s non-smart meter with their first smart meter, we need to be respectful of our customers’ preferences and concerns’.
Jemena Electricity Networks (JEN) also, although intending to complete its LMRP in the initial period rather than year-by-year, wrote, ‘At [a] regular DNSP meeting with the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) during the first half of 2025, DEECA expressed concerns with JEN about a heavy-handed approach to managing affected customers. It has never been JEN’s intent to be forceful with customers and [we] have developed a ‘light touch’ and ‘walk away’ strategy should we encounter any resistance or objection to the rollout activities [at] a specific customer premise’.
Jemena went on to say that it ‘will not replace meters where customers have clearly communicated their refusal to have smart meters installed as required under the Rule Change’.
The take-home message to the 17,000 or so Victorians who have managed to retain a legacy meter is you MUST respond to any communications sent by your power distributor advising of a meter replacement and inform them of your wishes. Make sure you have evidence of this. Continue to protect your meter. Keep your signs in place (and take a photo as proof).
Hang in there, and stand your ground!
Stop Smart Meters Australia 
I received a letter in October 2025 regarding a meter replacement in Pascoe Vale, followed up with a phone call a few days ago.