Australia 2018: the Coal War continues

It should come as no surprise that in the Coal War being conducted by right-wing ideologues and climate change deniers consumers are predicted to be the losers under the Turnbull Government's National Energy Agreement (NEG) and, that Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is offering the same illusory $550 per annum saving on electricity costs per household promised but not delived by his predecessor Tony Abbott. 

A COAG Energy Council Ministers meeting on August 2018 will reveal the final NEG design - a design which won't be published until after this meeting.

What is already broadly known about the NEG design appears to support allegations that the aim of this agreement is to cement the dominant position of fossil fuels in the national energy mix at the expense of renewable energy technologies.

REneweconomy, 20 July 2018:

As pressure mounts for Australia’s states and territories to finalise their position on the National Energy Guarantee, a new report has warned the federal government’s policy would fail to achieve its most basic and important function: to lower energy costs for consumers.

The report, commissioned by Greenpeace Australia Pacific, says the Coalition’s NEG would in fact do the opposite – raise electricity prices; as well as bringing investment in large-scale renewables to a halt, and do nothing to combat climate change.

Based on analysis conducted by energy and environment analysts RepuTex, the report models the impact of the NEG under the government’s 26 per cent emissions reduction target, compared to a more ambitious 45 percent target.

In both scenarios, as shown in Figure 17 above, electricity prices are forecast to fall through to 2020 as more than 6GW of renewable energy enters the NEM under large-scale renewable energy target (LRET).

“The increase in low cost solar and wind generation will see the electricity supply steadily become more competitive, with average prices less influenced by high priced gas, and subsequently falling toward $60 MWh in 2020,” the report says.

But under the NEG, new investment in renewables falls off a cliff after 2020, while the impact of the reliability guarantee drives an increase in gas generation, prolongs the phase-out of coal, and makes it harder for key new technologies, like battery storage and demand management to compete.

“The result is the continuation of a coal-dominated market with a fairly static picture for large-scale renewables investment, with gas providing flexibility to meet evening ramp ups,” the report says.

“As a result wholesale prices rise above $70 per MWh after the closure of Liddell, and $80 per MWh after the expected retirement of Yallourn in 2028.”

A more ambitious emissions reduction target, however, of 45 per cent, would provide a signal for investment in more solar and wind, driving prices down by around $20/MWh.

“The competitive pressure from higher solar and wind energy is modelled to push wholesale prices lower, eventually resulting in the closure of excess coal capacity” – around 9GW, in total, by 2030 RepuTex says.

GetUp! Australia

Published on Jul 23, 2018

The crucial make or break meeting of State Energy Ministers is on 10 August. So if we want block Turnbull's dirty energy plan, we need to move right now.

https://youtu.be/JdgLCihZJq8

Go to http://www.savesolar.org to make a free call.

Political Cartoon of the Week

   Cathy Wilcox

                                 

Over $4 billion of taxpayers money being spent on Snowy 2.0 and they get what?

The Turnbull Coalition Government in Canberra and the Hodgman Liberal Government in Tasmania have laboured to produce two new energy schemes - Snowy 2.0 and the "Battery of the Nation".

These schemes are being touted as ‘clean energy’ providing stability across the nation’s power networks, supply into the future and cheaper consumer costs.

One small problem……

Both are pumped hydro systems which will actually use more power than they generate as their electricity consumption will be high.

That is, the total megawatts of electricity from other sources required to pump the water into the hydroelectric plant will exceed the megawatts of electricity produced by the plant.

Not all the potential electricity produced by the plant is realised, because pumping water uphill and, the conversions of the potential energy to kinetic energy to electricity is less than 100% efficient across each stage of the entire process. It seems efficiency loss would run somewhere between 20% to 40%.

Then there are the environmental effects.

According to Union of Concerned Scientists:

Hydropower projects can reduce the flows in rivers downstream if the upstream flows are trapped behind a reservoir and/or diverted into canals that take the water off stream to a generation unit. Lowering the flows in a river can alter water temperatures and degrade habitat for plants and animals. Less water in the river can also reduce oxygen levels which damage water quality.

Water is typically stored behind a dam and released through the turbines when power is needed. This creates artificial flow patterns in the downstream river that may be very different from the flow patterns a river would naturally experience. For example, rivers fed mostly by snowmelt may experience much higher flows in the winter and spring than the summer and fall. Hydropower operations may differ from these natural flow patterns, which has implications for downstream riparian and aquatic species.  If water levels downstream of a hydropower project fluctuate wildly because of generation operations, fish could be stranded in suddenly shallow waters. If operations cause a more static flow schedule throughout the year than what the river would normally experience, the movement of sediment along a river section could be disrupted, reducing habitat for aquatic species. Fewer seasonal flow events could also cause a riparian corridor to thicken into a less dynamic channel as saplings that would usually be seasonally thinned by high flows are able to mature.

Dams can also block the migration of fish that swim upstream to reach spawning grounds. 

In addition, large dams created in heavily forested areas have been known to produce high levels of methane into the water and air in the period following construction.

The Snowy Mountains Scheme already contains one power station which includes capacity for pumped hydro - Tumut 3 Power Station at Talbingo Dam. It has a maximum 600 MW capacity and reportedly rarely uses its pumped hydro due to at least 30% efficiency loss. For every 1MWh of pumping the amount of generation that results is only 0.7 MWh of electricity. Operating hours when storage full is 40 hours.

The proposed Snowy 2.0 hydro scheme will have a maximum 2,000 MW capacity and will run an energy deficit as there will be an est. 24% difference between the amount of energy required to pump the water in and turn it into electricity and the amount of electricity the scheme actually produces. Operating hours when storage full is expected to be up to 7.3 days.

Its pumping storage is expected to have a life time of 40-60 years and for that the Australian taxpayer is expected to watch at least $4.5$ billion leave general revenue and go towards its construction.

It will the eighth power plant constructed within the Snowy Mountain Scheme.

Snowy 2.0 will be inserted 1km underground somewhere between Talbingo and Tantangra reservoirs. 

Rivers which feed the Snowy Mountain Scheme are the Tumbarumba, Tooma, Tumut, Eucumbene, Snowy, Jindabyne and Goodradigbee - their flows are expected to decrease over time due to climate change and, it is predicted that median water runoff into the scheme will be 13% lower within the next 50 years.

The bottom line is that the entire Snowy Mountains scheme (including 2.0) will very likely be water hungry in the lifetime of today's primary school kids and operating on ageing infrastructure. It is also likely that by that time the amount of electricity it can produce will have fallen.

It is a continuing marvel that the Howard, Abbott and Turnbull governments all only seriously considered those energy schemes which are at the higher end of the negative impact scale. 

The 2006 Howard Government's Switkowski report into the feasibility of nuclear power generation is a case in point. Now in approaching a large-scale renewable energy project this current federal government again choses one with a long list of potential negatives.

For the life of me I cannot see why solar, wind and wave power frightens Liberal and Nationals MPs and senators so much, when overseas experience shows just how successfully these can be harnessed by national governments that believe in climate change and the need for mitigation measures.

Reference Material

Snowy Hydro:

Snowy 2.0 feasibility study information and reports:

A short summary booklet on the feasibility study is available, click here.

To view the publicly available chapters of the feasibility study, go to the 2.0 Feasibility Study page here.

The Marsden Jacob Associates report (an independent expert economic analysis of the changing energy market) commissioned as part of the Snowy 2.0 feasibility study is available, click here.

Map found at Wikipedia

Quotes of the Week

"Globalisation can't be just about outsourcing and low wages"   [Jeff Immelt, Chief Executive Officer General Electric, quoted in Financial Review, 26 June 2017]

“In an appearance at the University of Chicago on Monday, former President Barack Obama unloaded a relentless barrage of complete sentences in what was widely seen as a brutal attack on his successor, Donald Trump.” [Andy Borowitz writing in The New Yorker, 24 April 2017]

“Coal India—a government-back coal company–is reportedly closing 37 of its "unviable" mines in the next year to cut back on losses.

India is primed for an energy revolution. The country's ongoing economic growth has been powered by fossil fuels in the past, making it one of the top five largest energy consumers in the world. But it has also invested heavily in renewables, and the cost of solar power is now cheaper than ever. In some instances, villages in India have avoided coal-powered electricity altogether, and "leapfrogged" straight to solar power.” [ Journalist Ankita Rao writing in Motherboard, 24 June 2017]

Turnbull Government's $75 & $125 bribes appear to have earned it nothing but falling poll numbers

The announcement of a one-off payment of $75 to singles and $125 to couples who receive the aged, disabled and carers pensions to cope with a predicted rise of $78 in the average household electricity bill from June this year, along with a promised loan to the SA Government for construction of a solar thermal power plant and a feasibility study for a north-south gas pipeline, in exchange for company tax cuts for businesses with up to $50 million annual turnovers – has not produced a happy bounce in the polls for the Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government led by Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce.

This Newspoll was conducted between Thursday 30 March and Sunday 2 April 2017.

The Australian, 3 April 2017:

Are there plans afoot to sell off part or all of the Snowy Mountains Scheme?

Snowy Hydro Ltd states on its website that:

The Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority was corporatised on 28 June 2002 under the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 to establish Snowy Hydro Limited. The Snowy Hydro Limited Constitution (Constitution) prescribes the responsibilities of the Board and Snowy Hydro’s reporting obligations, subject to the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001. Snowy Hydro’s shareholders are the New South Wales (58 per cent), Victorian (29 per cent) and Commonwealth (13 per cent) governments, with each shareholder having equal voting rights…….

Since corporatisation in 2002, Snowy Hydro has grown beyond the Snowy Scheme and now operates a growing and profitable retail energy, wholesale energy risk management and power generation business. We combine the power of the mighty Snowy Scheme with gas and diesel fired peaking generators to deliver a flexible and reliable mix of energy to our customers every day. We have 15 power stations, generate 4500 Gigawatt hours (GWh) on average per annum and have 5480 Megawatts (MW) of generating capacity across New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. We’ve become the fourth largest retailer in the NEM by investing in growing our customer base, modernising our generation infrastructure, building and acquiring more generating capacity where we need it and developing our workforce of more than 1700 employees.

Snowy Hydro controls the headwaters of the Snowy, the Murray and the Murrumbidgee rivers and its water licence allows it to collect, divert, store, and release water by and from the works of the Snowy Scheme for the 75 year term of the licence. This licence is due to expire sometime between June 2076 and June 2077.

On 19 December 2016 the Dept. of Energy and Industry called for expressions of interest in conducting a valuation of the corporation for the three owners – with the contract to commence 1 February 2017.

The tender document states in part:

The contractor is required to provide each shareholder with a “fit for purpose” certified report, detailing the valuation of Snowy Hydro Limited's (SHL's) equity at fair value as at 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018. The report will detail the scope, methodology, procedure and outcomes as well as all relevant assumptions, definitions and limiting conditions appropriate to the procurement. The contractor will supply the three shareholders with the preliminary and final versions of the valuation report in both written and electronic format. The report is to include explanations of movements in the valuations from year to year and take into account the interest holdings of the Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian Governments. The contractor will undertake the valuation as at 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018 as a Limited Scope Valuation Engagement….. 

On 15 March 2017 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced Securing Australia’s Energy Future with Snowy Mountains 2.0 – a plan to boost Snowy Hydro’s power generation by 50 per cent.

This announcement mentioned $2 billion in federal government funding but in effect only commits to a feasibility study of pumped hydro expansion.

Remembering the 2006 push led by the Howard Government to sell off the Snowy Mountain Scheme as well as 2016 media reports of a possible sale, the valuation of Snowy Hydro Ltd raises questions about Turnbull’s out-of-left-field announcement.

Was it a prime ministerial thought bubble thrown in to quieten the heated debate over energy security which is currently taking place or was it a calculated ‘sweetener’ thrown in to make future sale of the corporation to institutional and foreign investors more attractive?

Dear Malcolm, About your clean coal........

Facebook Malcolm Turnbull

23 February 

A letter to Malcolm Turnbull:

Dear Malcolm,

I am a retired power industry engineer with considerable expertise in the asset management, performance and efficiency of coal fired generation and I can assure you emphatically that building a new coal fired power station of any type would be technical and economic insanity. Let me explain why. Capacity Factor is a measure of how much power is actually generated as a percentage of what it could produce if it ran all the time at its nameplate rating. Because of the high capital and fixed costs of coal fired plants you need to achieve a Capacity Factor of more than 85% for all of its 30 year life to be economically viable. Below 70% you lose money and also suffer large efficiency drops and corresponding increases in levels of CO2 and other harmful pollutants. Below 55% the major components of the plant start to fail due to the inevitable increase in thermal cycling of the plants as they ramp up and down or are switched on and off. Do you know the current capacity factor of our existing black coal power stations in the NEM (VIC, NSW, QLD)? I guess no because I had to go through all of the latest annual reports of the generation companies to calculate it. AND IT IS 53%. This is because wind and solar are cheaper (regardless of the RET) and have displaced more expensive coal fired plants in the energy market. (At least we are in front of China where the average CF is 50% for exactly the same reason). So how can we justify a new, very expensive ultra critical coal plant when its power cost will mean it cannot pay for itself, it will not be able to achieve any efficiency improvements or CO2 reductions due to operating at reduced loads and is also likely to have a short life because the exotic metals needed are extremely susceptible to thermal fatigue? You will notice I have not referred to politics or climate change in my discussion, just engineering and economics. I should also point out that it will take ten years to build a new power station and I suspect we don't have that long when we are running our very old power stations with increased thermal cycling. We need to be accelerating storage options, not being distracted by technology that is no longer appropriate to the market.

Wayne Bissett.

 23 February at 17:23 

56 replies

How major electricity suppliers take advantage of rural and regional customers

This is what NSW Dept of Industry, Resources and Energy advises owners of roof top solar power previously covered by pre 31 December 2016 feed-in tariffs:

It is up to individual customers to decide what metering arrangement will best suit their property, system and budget. You may wish to refer to the fact sheet Small Scale Solar PV Generators.

Generally if you do not receive a feed-in tariff, or if your feed-in tariff is lower than the price you pay for electricity, you are likely to be better off with a net meter. Under net metering, electricity from a solar PV system is first used to meet any consumption that takes place at the time of the generation. This means that for each kilowatt hour you consume of your own generation, you save the retail price that would otherwise be paid for that consumption.

Customers are encouraged to contact their distributor or accredited service provider to discuss their metering options before making a final decision.

Endeavour Energy customer contact number 131 003
Ausgrid call centre number 131 535
Essential Energy contact number 13 23 91

The writer of this letter to the editor, published in the Clarence Valley Independent on  22 February 2017, appears to be currently exporting all his solar power to a residential energy supplier for a pitiful return.

This is occurring because the power supplier (which based on stated costing is likely to be Origin/Essential Energy) is refusing to install a net meter function for the solar power system because of alleged deficiencies in mobile coverage.

Mobile cover is required as the digital net meter in question is to be read remotely and, apparently existing NBN satellite or fixed wireless cover in the Braunstone area is not considered satisfactory by the energy company's representative.

I'm sure there are more than a few Northern Rivers residents in the same situation as Mr. Philipse and, I rather suspect that residential energy suppliers are quite content to have it continue that way. As the est. $18 cents per kwh hour net profit earned from a customer's rooftop solar power output by charging top price of 24.2 cents per kwh for that same solar power as residential supply back to that customer, is money for jam for these companies.

By 2050 over 10 million customers will own distributed resources like solar, storage, home energy management systems and electric vehicles which can supply enough power to national grid to achieve zero emissions

CSIRO & Electricity Network, excerpts, from media releases, 6 December 2016:

Electricity Network Transformation Roadmap

No choice needed between Energy Security or Low Emissions – if we act now

A landmark report finds Australian energy consumers do not have to sacrifice security of supply or affordability to achieve a low emissions future, if action is taken now.

The two-year analysis by CSIRO and Energy Networks Australia has produced a comprehensive plan to keep the lights on, bills affordable and decarbonise electricity.

As Australian Governments meet to discuss energy security, the Electricity Network Transformation Roadmap confirms reliable supply can be maintained during Australia’s transition to a more decentralised, clean electricity system.

Energy Networks Australia Chief Executive Officer, John Bradley, said Australian families would be better off by $414 per year on average under the Roadmap’s suite of measures.

“The Roadmap would transform Australia’s electricity system, enabling more choice and control for millions of customers while saving over $100 billion by 2050,” Mr Bradley said.

“If we act now, the grid will be more secure and resilient, despite high growth in large scale renewables and two-thirds of small customers taking up solar and storage by 2050.”

CSIRO Chief Economist Energy, Paul Graham, said a key Roadmap finding was that $16 billion in network expenditure could be saved by 2050 if the grid buys support services from customers with onsite resources.

“Under the Roadmap, traditional network investments can be avoided where it costs less to ‘orchestrate’ distributed resources in the right place at the right time and this saves money for all grid users.

“By 2050, over 10 million customers will own distributed resources like solar, storage, home energy management systems and electric vehicles which they can use to sell grid support services worth $2.5 billion per year.

Mr Bradley said the Roadmap would require collaborative action by grid operators, governments and other parties.

“Grid operators can act directly on many parts of the Roadmap including transforming their customer relationships, service innovation, smart grid operations and developing new incentives for customers,” Mr Bradley said.

“However, a better energy future will need clear market signals. A key objective of the 2017 review of carbon policy must be securing a stable and enduring framework which will reduce the cost and uncertainty of decarbonisation.

“Australian electricity customers want an electricity future which avoids more frequent blackouts and bill shock while addressing global warming – this is their Roadmap,” Mr Bradley said.

Media contact and for a copy of the report:

Fiona Hamann, Hamann Communication (02)4573 2284/0415 191 659 fiona_hamann@hamanncommunication.com

The Roadmap Key Concept Report

Based on two years work and extensive consultation the Roadmap identifies the complex challenges facing Australia’s electricity system in the face of diversified energy supply and identifies a strategy for the future, as well as a deliverable plan to achieve it.

The report finds that with a co-ordinated plan in 2050:

• Customers retain security and reliability essential to lifestyle and employment
• Networks pay distributed energy resources customers $2.5 billion per annum for grid support services by 2050.
• Electricity sector achieves zero net emissions by 2050
• $16 billion in network infrastructure investment is avoided by management of distributed energy resources like solar and batteries
• Reduction in cumulative total electricity network expenditure of $101 billion by 2050
• Network charges 30% lower than 2016
• $414 annual saving in average household electricity bills (compared with roadmap counterfactual, business as usual, pathway)
• A medium family who cannot take up distributed energy resources is over $600 p.a. better off through removal of cross subsidies.

Residential bill outcomes for selected Australian household types in 2050 under the counterfactual and Roadmap scenarios

CSIRO and Energy Networks Australia have released this concept report, to engage with the diverse electricity industry stakeholders, who to together with networks, will play a key role in helping to deliver a more efficient and affordable electricity future to the customers the system serves.

About the Electricity Network Transformation Roadmap

Australia’s national science agency CSIRO and the peak national body representing gas distribution and electricity transmission and distribution businesses in Australia, Energy Networks Australia have partnered to develop an Electricity Network Transformation Roadmap (the Roadmap). The Roadmap is a two stage process running over approximately two years. For more information go to www.energynetworks.com.au/roadmap

Zero Net Emissions electricity - It can be done

Australia could beat its current international emissions targets and achieve zero net carbon emissions by 2050 according to new analysis from CSIRO and Energy Networks.

The landmark joint study, the Electricity Network Transformation Roadmap, confirms the grid can enable a zero net emissions system by 2050 and sets out measures to achieve it.

CSIRO Chief Economist Energy, Paul Graham, said that the Roadmap shows that it is possible to contribute to global targets to reduce emission while lowering the impact on household bills.

“CSIRO analysis confirms it is possible for the electricity sector to maintain a reliable, stable grid while achieving zero net emissions by 2050, in line with the aspiration of the COP 21 Paris Agreement,” Mr Graham said.

“On the way to a zero net emissions future, Australia’s electricity sector could exceed its share of current national carbon abatement targets, achieving 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.”

Energy system analysis concludes that an integrated set of measures will be required including stable enduring carbon policy frameworks and incentives to enable ‘orchestration’ of millions of distributed energy resources, like storage, electric vehicles and smart homes.

Energy Networks CEO John Bradley said the two-year Roadmap study involving hundreds of stakeholders found a national, integrated plan was needed to enable ambitious long-term abatement in the electricity sector.

“A low cost and secure transition of the electricity system depends on stable, enduring carbon policy and the Roadmap recommends an Emission Intensity scheme for the generation sector be developed by 2020,” Mr Bradley said.

“By contrast, carbon policy which could change dramatically at every election or differs in every state is a recipe for a high cost and less secure electricity service to customers.

“Analysis for the Roadmap indicates technology neutral carbon policy, like an Emission Intensity Scheme, provides least cost abatement and could save customers over $200 per year by 2030.”

Mr Bradley said decarbonisation would require transformational changes in electricity grids.

“Significant abatement is achieved by connecting millions of small scale renewables and our analysis forecasts Australia to have 6 times its current Solar PV capacity in ten years and 16 times current levels by 2050.

“The Roadmap also highlights the key role of transmission networks maintaining system stability in a low carbon future, with high penetrations of variable renewables.”

Mr Graham said the Roadmap analysis confirmed the critical role of thermal plant in balancing variable renewable energy output during the transition but this would need to be replaced over time by low emission solutions like battery storage, pumped hydro, gas fired generation with carbon capture and storage or Power to Gas hydrogen technology.

“Our current analysis points to a zero net emissions future enabled by battery storage and biomass but there is a fierce technology competition underway,” Mr Graham said.

“With so much technology innovation occurring, market frameworks which are technology neutral and allow the best solutions to emerge will deliver lower costs for customers.”

Mr Bradley said the pathway to a zero net emissions future would present significant challenges which were manageable if governments, industry and customer advocates worked together in a national approach.

“During forums involving hundreds of stakeholders, there was immense support for Australia’s electricity system to prepare itself for a zero net emissions future.

“We’re hopeful the Roadmap analysis and proposed measures will support State and Federal Governments consider these issues during the carbon policy review scheduled for 2017.”

The Roadmap Key Concepts Report has been released for external consultation. Feedback has been sought by February 16 and the program will be finalised in March 2017.

What would happen if weird was contagious?

Given the Turnbull Government's weird response to the 28 September 2016 South Australian mega storm one wonders what would happen if its way of looking at renewable energy was contagious.

Perhaps something like this……

From the Independent on 14 December 2015:

A US town has rejected a proposal for a solar farm following public concerns.

Members of the public in Woodland, North Carolina, expressed their fear and mistrust at the proposal to allow Strata Solar Company to build a solar farm off Highway 258.

During the Woodland Town Council meeting, one local man, Bobby Mann, said solar farms would suck up all the energy from the sun and businesses would not go to Woodland, the Roanoke-Chowan News Herald reported.

Jane Mann, a retired science teacher, said she was concerned the panels would prevent plants in the area from photosynthesizing, stopping them from growing.

Ms Mann said she had seen areas near solar panels where plants are brown and dead because they did not get enough sunlight.

She also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer….

NSW households with feed-in tariffs on their rooftop solar power can expect no help with bill shock from the Baird or Turnbull governments

State of Play for NSW domestic solar power…….

REneweconomy, 1 September 2015:

The New South Wales pricing regulator has slashed the value of solar feed-in tariffs in the state in what appears to be a deliberate move to push consumers to adopt battery storage, and to lock in long-term deals with major retailers.

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) on Monday announced in a draft determination that the recommended average tariff – which is voluntary anyway for electricity retailers  in NSW – had been cut by 14 per cent to an average 4.8c/kWh, the lowest in Australia.

The move will affect the more than 3,000 homes that add rooftop solar in NSW each month, and gives some indication of the tariffs awaiting the 160,000 homes on premium feed-in tariffs when those tariffs come to an end at the end of 2016.

IPART justified the cut – from an average 5.6c/kWh in the past year – on the basis that wholesale electricity prices had fallen because of a decline in expensive peak pricing events.

One of the principal reasons for this fall in wholesale prices is the proliferation of rooftop solar PV. IPART says solar PV has helped reduce the number of daytime peak pricing events in NSW and helped lower the average level of peak demand by 8 per cent….

But while solar households are having their tariffs cut because of falling wholesale prices, there is no sign that lower wholesale prices have been passed on to the general consumer. Retailers simply increase their margins on the “retail” component of the business to offset the lower revenue they get from their coal plant and other generators. All major retailers have increased their margins significantly in the past year.

ABC News, 19 July 2016:

Thousands of Australians will be hit by electricity bill shock of about $1,500 when generous solar feed-in tariffs are rolled back in coming months, consumer advocates have warned.

The tariffs were introduced for a set period to kickstart Australia's uptake of rooftop solar by offering money to solar users who fed energy back into the grid.

More than 275,000 households will be affected when the tariffs are unwound from September to January in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria.

A new report that crunches the numbers on the financial impact shows 146,000 NSW customers will be the hardest hit…..

In NSW, the tariff will be wound back from 60 cents for all solar generation to 5.5-7.2 cents per kilowatt hour.

In Victoria, consumers who were paid 25 cents per kilowatt hour for excess solar fed into the grid will have that reduced to five cents and in South Australia the 16 cent tariff will fall to 6.8 cents.

The current NSW 60 cents tariff for all solar generation - 20 cents feed-in tariff (FiT) - gives a discount of est. 7 per cent on domestic electricity costs.

Current solar FiTs are ending for 275,902 households in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria.

The change occurs for households with FiT contracts which commenced in :

2011 (standard tariff) South Australia the change occurs on 30 September 2016 – new minimum tariff 6.8 cents per kWh;

2010 (“Solar Scheme Tariff”) New South Wales the change occurs on 31 December 2016 – up to retailer to decide the offer which is unlikely to exceed 5 cents kWh ; and

2011 (transitional tariff) & 2012 (standard tariff) Victoria the change occurs on 31 December 2016  - new tariff 5 cents per kWh. “Premium FiT” contracts do not expire until 2024.

According to the Independent Pricing And Regulatory Tribunal an average two-person household in NSW uses approximately 1,400 kWh of electricity per quarter (90 days) or 15.55kWh per day.

If a North Coast residence is lucky enough to receive a full 6 hours of sunlight daily on its rooftop solar panel and has installed a 3.0kw or 4.0 kw model it could produce between 11.7 to 16.8kWh of electricity per day.

Even the most basic maths indicates that from 1 January 2017 for many of these coastal households the dollar margin between output and consumption will fall and at the end of each billing period there will be less income to compensate for their actual energy use plus the usual energy retailer’s service fees and charges.

As both the Baird and Turnbull governments appear to be captives of the coal and gas industries, 2017 is going to be a year of unexpected adjustment for many of those older residents in the Northern Rivers who fondly imagined that they were future proofing their retirement by entering solar feed-in tariff schemes in 2010.

The Total Environment Centre explains Life after FiTs.

THE NATIONALS SAY THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM ELECTORS

Some weeks ago people in the Northern Rivers – and presumably other parts of the country – received an email from Fiona Nash, the Nationals’ Deputy Leader.  Ms Nash stated that she was committed to giving regional Australians a proper voice at the top table and wanted help in representing us.

She continued with:  “The new Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce and I are renewing our commitment to people in small towns, on family farms and small communities. Those on our pristine coast, and deep in the bush. We will fight every day for the hospitals, roads and essential services regional people deserve. Our party, uniquely, has never forgotten who we represent – and who we work for. This is your chance to tell us what YOU think we should be prioritising in 2016.”

The person who told me about the email was rather bemused that she had received such a communication from the Nationals.  However, she decided that, since she had emailed the local federal MP about an issue some time ago, that must have been how her email address was obtained.

A MESSAGE TO FIONA NASH  - SOME VIEWS ON THREE OF THE ISSUES THE NATIONALS SHOULD PRIORITISE

EDUCATION

Gonski should be fully funded until 2020. The Gonski education reforms which provide needs-based funding are about fairness and equal opportunity in education – of vital importance to our national future – particularly a future in which we have been told innovation will be important.

Needs-based resourcing for education is extremely important in rural areas which often suffer from socio-economic disadvantage. 

Before the 2013 election there was a bipartisan commitment to full Gonski  funding – something the Government has since reneged on.  This is one of a number of promises broken by the Coalition following that election.

Some time ago the Prime Minister suggested public schools funding could become the sole responsibility of the states.  This justifiably angered many community members who support public schools and believe they perform a vital role in our society. The Commonwealth must continue to share responsibility for public school funding.

HEALTH

There is considerable room for improvement in dealing with health issues in regional areas.  For example hospitals are often poorly equipped and funded; mental health services are lacking in many areas; and specialist services are minimal except in the larger regional centres.  It is often difficult to attract and keep GPs in rural areas – let alone specialists.

The Medical Research and Rural Health Garvan Report 2015 pointed out that people living in rural and remote areas  make up 30% of the population but do not receive anywhere near 30% of health funding.

A recent article in The Daily Examiner, the Clarence Valley’s daily newspaper, discussed  the major health issues in the Clarence and the fact that local residents are disadvantaged in relation to preventative health care as well as in obtaining medical assistance for health emergencies. (Saturday April 30^th)

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change is a major and urgent issue which has been woefully neglected by the Coalition Government.  It’s not surprising that the Nationals have been dragging their heels when Deputy Leader Fiona Nash claims the science isn’t settled – and she obviously isn’t the only climate sceptic in the party. 

Despite these views, the Nationals need to realize that an increasing number of Australians – including those in regional areas – are very concerned about climate change and the impact it is already having in Australia and elsewhere.  And that number is going to rise.  There will be an increasing demand from the electorate for effective measures to limit carbon emissions and to transition to renewable energy.  This transition has huge benefits for our economy and for jobs – benefits that the Government is recklessly ignoring.

Just how much do the Nationals know about the potential benefits that renewable energy can bring – and is already bringing – to rural areas?   Are the National aware of moves towards setting up community energy projects?  Are they aware of Enova, the new energy retailer being established in the Northern Rivers?  As well as knowing about these developments, they should be enthusiastically supporting them.  These are examples of important innovations and ones the Government as a whole should be supporting.

SO, FIONA  NASH,  RURAL  PEOPLE DESERVE  ACTION  ON  THESE  MATTERS.  ARE  YOU  AND  YOUR  COLLEAGUES  GOING  TO  FIGHT  FOR  THEM ?

Hildegard

Northern Rivers

6^th May 2016

GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will be considered on topical subjects.