WA Residential Net Feed-In Tariff announced « Alternative Technology Assn Forums

Alternative Technology Assn Forums » General

WA Residential Net Feed-In Tariff announced

(26 posts) (13 voices)

Started 1 year ago by pearthboy
Latest reply from DodgyTech

Tags:

pearthboy
Member

A slightly low tariff amount, but certainly a good result for WA to encourage energy efficiency and PV uptake.....

Residential Net Feed-In Tariff announced

The net feed-in tariff scheme has been set at 40 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) on electricity exported into both the South West Interconnected System (SWIS) and regional grids.

This is in addition to the price paid under the existing Renewable Energy Buyback Scheme (which has been revised to 7c) that will allow householders to receive a minimum of 47c/kWh.

Minister Collier’s media announcement - http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/WACabinetMinistersSearch.aspx?ItemId=133582&minister=Collier&admin=Barnett

Office of Energy description - http://www.clean.energy.wa.gov.au/pages/re_feed-in_tariff.asp

Posted Friday 28 May 2010 @ 3:54:28 am from IP #
Bevwa
Member

So beginning on the 1st of August to allow for registration from July 1st, the Feed in tariff in WA will finally begin.
The new tariff is 40 cents but this is on top of the current Synergy REBS programme (Renewable Energy Buyback Scheme). The current REBS is whats in place now and pays customers 17.21c for exported solar power which is the current cost per unit of power that we buy less the gst.
So you would think the new FiT would be 57.21c (40c + 17.21c) but no! The whimpy state government will be reducing the current REBS to a miserable 7c! come the 1st of August making a grand total of 47c.
This from a state government and its opposition that were both promising gross feed in tariffs in the last election. Further more it still has kept the limit to an inverter size of 5kw and runs for a lousy 10 years only. Poor form Mr Collier, Poor form!

Posted Friday 28 May 2010 @ 3:54:09 pm from IP #
Reciprocity
Member

Bevwa....the REBS (Renewable Energy Buyback Scheme) is a Synergy product, therefore it is Synergy's choice as to what they want to pay people for electricity exported into the grid. So you can't directly blame the government, it is Synergy who make the decision. Also, it is Synergy who limits the size of system you can connect to the grid, not the government (NOTE - Horizon Power who provide the power up north (eg Broome) allow up to 30 kW systems to be connected to their grids.

PS - I do not work for the government, nor am I a Collier/Barnett sympathiser.

Posted Wednesday 2 Jun 2010 @ 9:18:59 am from IP #
pearthboy
Member

AT the end of the day the reason Horizon allow 30kW systems as part of their REBS scheme is because it is in their interest to create incentive for renewable customers - their costs to generate can be as high as $1/kWh in some areas of the north and as such, paying a REBS scheme is generally good business.

That is not to say the Synergy REBS scheme shouldn't be increased. Synergy has a statutory obligation to purchase REBS up 5kW, and so I WOULD be looking to government to increase that obligation. I'm no Synergy sympathizer, and I think without the obligation to purchase RE they wouldn't do it at all, but I also recognise that Synergy is a corporation, albeit state-owned, and so we shouldn't get too upset when they act like a corporation and make business decisions. Full retail contestibility has to be the answer here....

Posted Friday 4 Jun 2010 @ 1:30:16 am from IP #
MCD
Member

I’m new to this forum; however we have a Sunnyboy 2.2Kw system at home. I will be interested to see if they change the present system of metering. Presently, the bi-directional meter (and billing) doesn’t differentiate between the power you send back and the power you use. The bill only notes a “net” credit – which is counter-intuitive, as if you have a “credit” you shouldn’t owe.
This will work to Synergy’s advantage, as if you send back ~10 units during the day (@.47/unit=4.00) and use 20 at night (@.17/unit=3.40), you should see a benefit (net .60 positive /day). I believe this is only possible if the meter tracks both directions, which I was told it doesn’t (contrary to the European system). I have also tracked the daily usage over several months to see if the bills matched the meterage, and it was close, however iit did not match the Sunnyboy output statistics. I questioned Synergy on how they determined the usage (you should have 2 numbers, starting and finishing, and subtract; however this totally befuddled the lady answering the phone. She continued to say that Synergy just gets an “amount used” during the period.
On a final note – I didn’t see this news on the new tariff in the paper – did I iess it.
Any clarity would be greatly appreciated.

Posted Tuesday 15 Jun 2010 @ 7:46:59 am from IP #
young neil
Member

once the owners of grid connect pv systems do the maths and realise that most of them are now going to be earning LESS with this new feed in tariff than before,i suspect that there might be a bit more negative feedback than at present. the wa govt and synergy have done a great job of announcing an incentive scheme but implementing the opposite. personally ,i have a 2kw system that now runs at a small surplus to our usage...ie we make a small profit. under the aug 1 scheme we will be paying synergy for the privilage of supplying them with cheap power [7c /kw] and then them selling it for 20 to 40c /kw. the much anticipated net feed in tariff of 40c will NOT ofset this deficit,with the end result that we will now owe money to synergy every month. this is contary to the spirit of the tariff and contradicts what we have been told,and has seemed to have been accepted by the public at face value. this whole exercise is just a way of making it seem as if the govt is being progressive,with no intention of actually providing an incentive for people to install renewable power systems. just wait for the outcry later in the year when the new tariff kicks in!

Posted Wednesday 16 Jun 2010 @ 9:16:01 am from IP #
nimm
Member

MCD, in WA we have net metering. The way this works is the meter keeps track of how much energy flows out to the grid and how much flows in. If you don't have one of the newer meters that tracks both then I'd be surprised.

The intuitive problem with the bills you receive is that they only show what you export and what you import - they don't tell you what you actually generated (and can't without adding another meter between your inverter and switchboard, so don't get upset at the electricity company!). Our inverter keeps track of how much is generated and we can also record this on the computer. You need all three (exported, imported, and generated) in order to actually work out how much electricity you're using and how much you are reducing your bill (excluding credits for exporting).

- total used = imported + (generated - exported)
- total saved = (generated - exported) * unit cost (e.g. 17c/unit)
- debits = imported * unit cost + service charge
- credits = exported * buy price
- total bill = debits - credits

No matter what, you will be reducing your bill (total saved), but not necessarily be getting any credits unless you are exporting _excess_ during the time you're generating electricity. If you have a system generating a lot of excess then you may get lucky and have a bill which is very low or even in credit. Our 2.4kW system left us with $140 credit after the summer months, but I expect this to disappear over winter.

Using my own system as an example, in summer we might produce 16kWh over 8hrs (for simplicity). We also use around 8kWh per day. Do we export 8kWh and import nothing? NO, because we only generate for 8hrs then have to import the rest. The point is that over those 8hrs we're generating way more than we use and export the excess. If we average out daily usage to hourly usage then I get 8/24 = .333kWh. If we average out generated power to hourly then I get 16/8 = 2kWh. So with this very simplified example I would be exporting 2 (generated/hr) - .333 (used/hr) = 1.66kW per hour for the 8hrs I'm generating = 13.3kWh total. I also need to import for the remaining hours of the day, so 24 (total hrs) - 8 (generating hours) = 16 * .333 (used/hr) = 5.33kWh total. So in summary I would generate 16kWh per day, export 13.3kWh, and import 5.33kWh.

The reality is a bit more complex since I use more electricity in the day cause I work from home and we're up preparing food, washing clothes, using computers, etc... Which means i'd probably be exporting _less_ and possibly importing a little _less_ too (over night power usage would be very low).

Posted Thursday 17 Jun 2010 @ 3:34:53 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

The WA FIT is a scam!
Synergy currently buys electricity from REBS households at between 36.50c per kWh and 9.80c per kWh, according to their current REBS pricing structure that can be found here: http://www.synergy.net.au/docs/rebs_pricing_schedule_July_2010.pdf
However Synergy proposes to only buy electricity for a flat rate (regardless of peak/off peak periods) of 7c/kWh after the introduction of the FIT scheme, plus the 40c/kWh from the FIT as can be found here: http://www.synergy.net.au/docs/rebs_pricing_schedule.pdf This would mean a total of 47c/kWh would be paid to the householder producing renewable energy. This is an increase of a mere 10.5ckWh over the current Synergy REBS tariff.
Please note that the FIT scheme is funded via the State Budget (and not Synergy or any other Retailer) as outlined in the Ministers announcement. Please find that announcement here: http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Results.aspx?ItemID=133582
Synergy does not pay the 40c/kWh to the household, the State does. Therefore Synergy are only paying an astonishingly meagre 7c/kWh for renewable energy to the household producing it, so that Synergy can on-sell the electricity as Natural Power to the next household at a premium, as renewable energy, that consumers pay an additional 6.1c/kWh for, on top of the 40.14c/kWh base Synergy on-peak rate. As most renewables under the scheme are solar, they will produce this power when the sun is shining, which generally coincides with the on-peak period tariff. Just to recap: Synergy pay just 7c/kwh for electricity bought via their REBS, which they on-sell for 46.24c kWh to their Natural Power customers.

This is not “fair and reasonable terms” as outlined in the Electricity Industry (Licence Conditions) Regulations (2005) and clearly contravenes the statement made point (4.) of the Office of Energy FIT factsheet that can be found here: http://www.synergy.net.au/docs/FiT_FAQs.pdf
Here the Office of Energy claim in point (3.) that:
• The net feed-in tariff rate will be 40 c/kWh for electricity exported to the grid. This is additional to the price paid by Synergy and Horizon Power under the Renewable Energy Buyback Scheme.
And further in point (4.) that:
• The feed-in tariff scheme is a Government subsidy which will be passed on by retailers as a payment based on each unit of net electricity exported to the grid.
However they also mention further in point (4.) that:
• Synergy has recently reviewed its buyback rate to more accurately reflect the value of the energy. The new rate will be set at 7c/kWh from 1 August 2010 and will be reviewed annually.
I seriously consider this statement be false and completely misleading for the following reasons:
• Synergy must conform to Electricity Industry Regulations and objectives and federal FIT principles
• Natural Power is sold by Synergy for a minimum of 6.1ckWh on top of any peak/off-peak period standard electricity tariff, ranging from 40.14c/kWh to 10.78c/kWh or totalling between 46.13c/kWh to 16.78c/kWh. Synergy was content with the previous REBS tariffs as they still earned 6.1c/kWh for on-selling the renewable power from households at nearly no cost to themselves.
• Synergy is further monopolising the energy retail market against the objectives outlined when the “Independent Market Operator” was established by the Economic Regulatory Authority. Please find these objectives here: http://www.erawa.com.au/2/239/42/wholesale_market_objectives.pm
I have raised these and various other serious objections to the proposed FIT in my submission to the Department of Energy/SEDO FIT discussion paper to no avail.
• Synergy has negligible network costs associated with the REBS scheme as their Energy Transfer Access Contract (ETAC) with Western Power Networks (WPN) includes both import and export of electricity per connection point to the Western Power electricity grid. They pay the same to WPN regardless if the household supplies or consumes electricity and in fact it could be argued that if the total metered import/export amounts go down Synergy will have to pay even less to WPN as the WPN network will be underutilised.
• The only identifiable cost in my opinion is the administrational costs of the Synergy REBS as most of the costs for the hardware system are paid for by the REBS customer when they install a system.
It would seem that Horizon Power (the WA country energy retailer outside of Synergy’s SWIN) has opted for the correct approach and will continue to pay similar to their pre-FIT rate as can be seen here: http://www.horizonpower.com.au/horizon_events/boostRenewableEnergySys.html

The total paid of 58.93 equates to 40c/kWh from the FIT scheme and another 18.93c/kWh from Horizon themselves.( Also Horizon allows 6 times the capacity of renewables to be installed which increases the amortisation rate considerably) Why hasn’t Synergy adopted the same pricing policy and carried on their original tariffs of 36.50c/kWh plus the government subsidy of 40c/kWh for a total of 76.50c/kWh? At least then solar system buyers would be able to amortise their costs inside the lifetime of the system of about 20 years, currently it is nearly impossible to amortise a solar system of under 3kW in size at all. The main reason for this is that the FIT is calculated on the NET amount exported to the grid. This means only the electricity the renewable household is not consuming itself is paid for by the FIT, unlike the FIT in NSW and ACT. The Synergy REBS statistics show that a mere 17% of energy produced in the scheme is exported to the grid to other consumers. This could lead to the FIT never actually providing any payments at all, and effectively forces people who install renewables in their houses to consume their own renewable electricity at a rate of REBS plus FIT rates ie 47c/kWh. Why are people installing renewables being penalised for trying to do something good for the environment and protecting their future energy security?

On top of this, the FIT scheme seems quite ineffective in producing a reduction in carbon emissions. A simple calculation based on these figures indicates that the FIT scheme would in fact only replace a total of 1800kW of fossil fuel generation or just 0.00045% of the States electricity generation capacity at a cost of over a $100 million to consumers for solar hardware alone. To put this into perspective standard industry pricing of 1800kW (1.8MW) of fossil fuel powered generation would only cost about $2.5million. Annually, this is 15000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions reduced or the equivalent of removing a mere 3000 cars from the road! To put it another way: it would cost over $700 per ton of carbon removed through the FIT scheme, whereas carbon credits (for one ton of CO2) are only worth $23 in the carbon exchange market and Synergy claim that the equivalent energy produced is only worth $70!! (Based on 1MWh = 1ton C02 and 7c/kWh = $70/MWh)

Synergy has a complete monopoly on the states household consumers (and the WA FIT scheme) through the contestability threshold, as households are not allowed to purchase from other retailers as is the case in the Eastern States. Yet they seemingly have the audacity of changing their own tariffs in order to profit on the tax payers dollars through the FIT scheme. How can the government justify a scheme in which they use Tax Payers dollars to assist their own government owned, energy monopoly? They do this in blatant contradiction to the governments own principles and objectives and even write these contradictions on the same page!
I fear greatly that if the State and Synergy are allowed to proceed unchecked, that all lower income earners will ultimately suffer from these ridiculous actions and remain enslaved to pay Synergy whatever they ask without fair compensation, because of Synergy’s complete monopoly in the states household energy market

Posted Monday 2 Aug 2010 @ 4:41:30 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Edit:
Sorry it should read 0.045% in this paragraph above:
On top of this, the FIT scheme seems quite ineffective in producing a reduction in carbon emissions. A simple calculation based on these figures indicates that the FIT scheme would in fact only replace a total of 1800kW of fossil fuel generation or just 0.00045(0.045%!) of the States electricity generation capacity at a cost of over a $100 million to consumers for solar hardware alone.

Posted Monday 2 Aug 2010 @ 4:48:22 am from IP #
benedict
Member

Great post Jeffbloggs. I agree the WA governments FIT is a joke. I installed a 1.5kw system a few years ago, and have resigned myself now to the fact that it's never going to pay for itself, and that my Stste government is not in the least committed to renewable energy. Because people running solar or wind power units are such a minority, it obvious the govt doesn't consider us worth trying to win the votes from. When I found out that Synergy were going to pay just 7c/kwh from 1 Aug, i felt ill. I'd really encourage you to keep at the relevant Ministers and other influential people, as you've got some very compelling reasoning.

Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 2:16:24 pm from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Update:
Will be running on WAToday on Wednesday...and I am getting a call from the supervising editor on ABC Lateline tomorrow...hopefully this will get Synergy to reconsider.. not the first run in I've had with them, last time it cost me $600k.

Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 2:47:56 pm from IP #
gully
Member

Good explanation nimm. Net is quite difficult to verify figures on, gross is much MUCH easier.

Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 11:40:09 pm from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

This was posted on the WA Today (fairfax media) site this morning:

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/where-the-sun-doesnt-shine-20100813-1226d.html

Posted Monday 16 Aug 2010 @ 3:32:41 am from IP #
alfresco24
Member

WA is not part of the NEM and has a different paradigm of costings and issues which creates a narrower scope for monetising PV returned to the grid. In any case any extra tariff you earn for exporting, is simply paid for by the other consumers who dont have PV.

Sooner or later we'll be paying ourselves out of our own taxes - it cant keep up. There will likely be little or no PV/renewable FIT premium in say 10 years. At best it will be just above parity with average delivered energy price so enjoy it while you can - at the expense of everyone else:)

As the amount of renewables in the grid reaches certain mass there is a change is costing called the Demand Reduction Induced Price Effect which basically says "because the need for that 1 hour-a-time peaking plant is reduced, the price of network augmentation and generation is reduced, and tariff's dont have to go up as much in the next round of price reviews".
The future is a hard sell and utility consumers generally just dont get it!

Also, I'm not sure what the difference is between the Government, and utilities that operate at arms length from government, nothing I suspect.
Frankly people who buy PV largely to try to make money do, IMHO, miss the point.
Then to complain loudly about not getting enough just sounds childish.

Posted Monday 16 Aug 2010 @ 7:22:19 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Alfresco24
It is not a question of just PV installers complaining about wanting more. Synergy already paid 36ckWh, now with the introduction of a Tax funded FIT they think 7c kWh is fair. The FIT is paid via taxes not other consumers on the network. Plus, when it come to on-selling the PV generation they bought at 7ckWh, they don't have a problem charging 46.25cents for it as Green Power to literally the hous next door. They have also changed their tariff to a "flat" rate which is against COAG.
Any argument on how the wholesale of electricity is priced via a "Demand Reduction Induced Price Effect" is mute, when the proposed outcome of a government tax subsidized FIT does not comply with its own objectives to promote "fair and reasonable" development of household renewables. If your "DRIPE" would apply then all FIT schemes would become redundant.
BTW Synergy is wholly owned by the state government.
Besides when is enough ever enough for us PV children?
I guess when it is no longer fair!

Posted Monday 16 Aug 2010 @ 9:03:02 am from IP #
alfresco24
Member

No need to get personal Jeff. It's not my DRIPE, it or similar functions are a widely understood concept in the price setting processes globally.
DRIPE is not something you choose to have or not to have - it is a consequence or outcome.

Yes, all FIT schemes eventually will have to moderate their payout rate to reflect the delivered energy value - you only deserve to get paid for the energy not the distribution. It still costs Synergy to re-distribute and manage that energy.
I'm keen to believe that the WA FIT is paid from state taxes and not from the electricity market - do you have a legit reference or source for that?

There isnt a lot of stuff that COAG 'agrees' which individual states instead choose to do with as they wish, so the situation is hardly moot at all.
Have a look at Denmark, where they enjoy roughly 50% renewables, but their average cost of electricity is now around 40c/kWh compared to our average cost at a third of that.

Do you want PV on the roof to be a badge of honour, or a sign of greed?

Posted Monday 16 Aug 2010 @ 4:15:01 pm from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Hey Alfresco24
I'm not quite sure what you took personally, but if you took offence to my sarcasm I apologize.
My point with the "DRIPE" is that all FITs are made only to combat the slow uptake of renewables in the private sector, because they cannot compete with fossil tariffs. There is no other purpose. So why argue that it will be adjusted to DRIPE, if the FIT was specifically made to circumvent it? This is also why I would agree with your prognosis that when the FIT stops it would have to adjust to DRIPE. The FIT is designed to offset DRIPE. If DRIPE was invoked it would negate a FIT.

In regard to the FIT, it is important that the RE installations are developed using private sector funds, not government or corporate funds, as this is the most effective way to get real money into RE. In Germany 80% of the renewables are private owned and developed. Private Australians need to be supported to do the same, unless the government wants to capitalize RE asset development directly.

Synergy does not redistribute or manage the energy per se, the Independant Market Operator does this. Neither do they run the network, Western Power does this. They only collect metering data from WPN and invoice consumers, via their bilateral contracts with independent generators. Yes they do pay network charges for consumers through their ETAC, but this includes both import and exports. Seeing that they are the only retailer in WA, the RE household generated power wouldn't reach the end of the street before being consumed by the house next door, as ohms law would apply. Therefore there would be negligible actual distribution costs.
In relation to Tax funded FIT please refer to my original posts links above or: http://www.synergy.net.au/docs/FiT_FAQs.pdf

To RE value: When was the actual value of energy ever determined by a value of fiat money? This contradicts itself...find out what "value" the money in your wallet really holds before making statements about their intrinsic value. Green Power tariffs already provide a significant indication of what consumers are prepared to pay extra for RE, and this phenomenon contradicts the perceived "value" of RE, in relation to what is a deemed a "deserved" payment. I doubt whether this attitude will change in the future, as more environmental awareness will provide even more demand on RE resources.

BTW I have no PV installed whatsoever, and most likely I never will because it is simply not effective enough for me (my Prius has some tiny PV in the "solar-roof", thats all the PV I have). As a badge of honour I provide 1400kW 24hours a day, 7 days a week, of 100% renewable electricity to the grid, from my backyard (farm), at a price of 5 to 7c kWh, which is less than what NG electricity costs. Plus by converting organic waste, my system reduces emissions 18x faster than the typical equivalent capacity wind turbine. I think this alone, should really make me as green as a garden gnome!

I'm not going to benefit in any way by fighting this FIT injustice, I am only doing it out of principle, to protect those who don't know enough to help themselves. If this is greed, then I think I might have to be generous enough to buy you a dictionary.

Posted Tuesday 17 Aug 2010 @ 3:01:00 am from IP #
Damien
Member

Hi Jeffbloggs and alfresco24,

Just wanted to add a couple of points to your interesting debate.

Firstly, the purpose of policy mechanism such as feed-in tariffs or quota systems such as the Renewable Energy Target is not emissions reductions - they are primarily industry development mechanisms aimed at increasing the overall percentage of electricity generation from renewable sources in the market, and are generally applied in the absence of true market policies that price externalities such as cost of carbon.

If emissions reduction is a government's policy objective, then there are established mechanisms that can deal with this isssue - primarily emissions trading or a carbon tax, or directly influencing / regulating emissions intensive operations.

A simplistic comparison on cost of emissions abatement alone between various renewable technologies driven via either a FiT or RET type system is unhelpful as it is not the sole purpose of the mechanism, and ignores other network benefits and social benefits (e.g. greater levels of PV leading to greater public discussion / engagement with environmental issues).

If we are talking about the cost of subsidy to small scale technologies such as PV, then we need to bear in mind the full cost of environmental externalities from emission intensive sources and the level of subsidy aimed at this sector that continues to completely dwarf the subsidies aimed at renewables across the country.

And the impact of aiming FiTs at small scale renewables only inevitably leads to a regressive tax on low income households, but again there are well established mechanisms to protect this class of customer, which state govts continue to ignore by not designing their FiTs properly, and with the long term in mind.

And one small point, very few (if any) small generators register as GreenPower providers, due to the formalities, time and expense in doing so.

Cheers, Damien.

Damien Moyse
Energy Policy Manager
Alternative Technology Association

Posted Monday 23 Aug 2010 @ 5:51:46 am from IP #
alfresco24
Member

Thanks for your words Damien.
Are we as a country spending our money wisely on over subsidised PV and FIT's ?
I don't think so, but I recognise the importance of having visible reminders of the relative simplicity that PV and wind have, and for the need to popularise alternative and renewable energy.

Posted Monday 23 Aug 2010 @ 9:28:19 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Damien
To your first comment about the purpose of a policy mechanism like a RET - Renewable Energy Target not being for emissions reductions, I would like to point you to this government website:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/renewable-target/need-ret.aspx
or page 4 here:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4356_ems_e888597e-d9cf-43b7-a044-c160028ff5ad/upload_pdf/342556.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

It would seem that the government clearly disagrees with your opinion that it is not primarily to combat climate change through promoting renewables, to enable emissions reduction from fossil fuel generated electricity. I also see no reference to the MRET providing "greater levels of PV leading to greater public discussion / engagement with environmental issues", using the MRET as a mechanism. I acknowledge that this is a positive side-effect, however I completely disagree that this is the primary objective, unless of course you have insider knowledge of the real motivations of Government MRET policy!

I do agree with your statement that it is "aimed at increasing the overall percentage of electricity generation from renewable sources", however this is only undertaken to combat climate change, by enabling industry through government policy.
BTW in the WA FIT policy it also states:
"enable householders to contribute to the achievement of national renewable energy and carbon reduction targets."

In lieu of a carbon tax or comparable mechanism (CPRS,ETS etc), I am not aware of any other Australian policy that is currently mitigating emissions, apart from MRET, FIT renewables rebates etc, that Government could use to control these types of carbon emissions. Which "established mechanisms" are being used in Australia that deal with these emissions issues? Could you please provide some more information on these mechanisms?

In regards to the cost of these subsidies I am not quite sure I understand what your point was. Are you suggesting that we should be mindful of the full cost of environmental externalities, in the form of embodied energy emissions, or in the form of overall market costs required to pay such subsidies?

On the point of Green Power providers, these formalities are another unnecessary bureaucratic burden, and Green Power accreditation seems to be nothing more than a missing ORER function, as GP requires full ORER accreditation anyway. Hopefully the new SRES will provide some further GP incentive via the clearing house. The argument with Green Power in relation to the WA FIT, is that RE generators should be allowed to be paid directly from Green Power consumers (taking into account network costs etc). That way one could save the $23m tax fund for the WA FIT, and RE generators would only get 0.76c kWh less. This has been discussed in more detail in the "Unfair Changes to Renewable Energy Buy back Scheme Western Australia" thread, if you are interested.

I have a issue with the general acceptance that popular opinion is the right thing to do. A publicly accepted lie is not the truth, it remains a lie. That is why it is so important for every individual to be informed, preferably with the truth, regardless of the propaganda being pedaled by the media, or its major contributer, popular government. Most important and influential policy change in government was from a moral obligation (slavery, racisim etc.) and was in direct contradiction to public opinion of the time (ie US Civil war). Those morally corrupted, opposed and acted in defiance, until they repented and capitulated after they understood they were morally wrong. All of these moral decisions came at a cost. This is why it is important that the foresight of a few, together with strong leadership, should promote a just cause, regardless of public opinion. Sadly both this foresight and leadership is completely lacking in our current government.

I don't think the government (and some energy retailers) can be justified by simply changing the most commonly perceived and publicized objectives of these policies. I accept there are other issues that can be promoted through the same scheme, however I think it is important that government is held responsible for its actions, as well as its inaction, and as citizens we have the moral obligation to make sure our representative democracy is held fully accountable, until a equitable and sustainable policy is achieved.

Posted Monday 23 Aug 2010 @ 1:09:57 pm from IP #
rockabye
Member

For WA people it is of interest that the new federal member for O'Connor is very renewable focused. From Tony Crooks website:

Quote "The Nationals WA candidate for O’Connor, Tony Crook, has unveiled his vision to create a renewable energy hub in Albany.

Mr Crook said Albany is well positioned to expand further into renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, wave power and biofuels.

“Renewable energy is undoubtedly the way of the future, and regional Western Australia has great potential to contribute, with no shortage of space, sun, waves and wind,” Mr Crook said.

“Albany already has a wind farm and the Carnegie Wave Power project has been canvassed over recent months, but we should be actively selling the rich natural, renewable resources the region has.

“Renewables are not only good for the environment, but this new industry would also create employment opportunities – both directly in the industry and flow-on service industries – in the region.”

Posted Monday 23 Aug 2010 @ 9:26:27 pm from IP #
Damien
Member

Hi Jeffblogs,

Yes the Govt and the Dept of Climate Change have long spruiked the RET and FiTs as primarily about emission reduction. Provided they drive enough investment into low / zero carbon eletricity generation sources, to the extent that coal fired power stations start getting swtiched off, then they will achieve this goal. But given their size (20% RET plus miniscule FiTs), the Treasury modelling shows that without a carbon price, even with the RET and FiTs, emissions go up over the next two decades. The govt and Dept Climate Change conveniently forget to highlight this on the front page of their website.

In any event, RETs and FiTs drive megawatt hours, not CO2e reduction. A REC is worth one megawatt hour, not one tonne of CO2e. Most economists will tell you that mechanisms such as RETs and FiTs are primarily about industry development and restructuring, with emission reductions a secondary benefit if they are substantial enough. But in the long term, the primary policies to reduce emissions should be the appropriate economic mechanisms using a carbon price. Nothing else is predicted to actually reduce emissions. You must keep in mind too that emissions from electricity generation are only about 35 - 40% of the problem nationally.

My words regarding "greater levels of PV leading to greater public discussion / engagement with environmental issues" is definitely about the MRET. THe MRET has long incentivised small scale renewables, and the point that I am making is that whilst small scale is more expensive cost per watt, there are other social benefits derived from having a greater prevalence of renewables embedded in communities. Govt too recognises this and is part of the reason they seek to support individual action as part of the overall response to climate change. This is why we were successful in getting voluntary action officially recognised by the previous govt during the CPRS negotiations.

Govts use all sorts of policies and programs designed to assist with climate change, from R&D funding into low emission technologies, start up funding for innovative projects, community based funding, and other industry incentives such as tax breaks, accelerated depreciation, building and vehicle minimum standards, energy efficiency market policies, etc. Still overall we are not ambitious enough with these as a whole, and without a carbon price emissions will still continue to rise.

My point regarding the cost of subsidies to small scale renewables was that we need to weigh this up against the cost of environmental externalities (e.g. impacts on public health, other eco-systems from which we derive benefits) that are not costed from emission intensive activities. And we also need to bear in mind the considerable subisidies that continue to go to the fossil fuel industry right through the supply chain, which dwarf the subsidies provided to renewables.

Cheers, Damien.

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 1:52:42 am from IP #
Damien
Member

Hi alfresco24,

The amount of money collectively we are spending on susidising small scale renewables through the renewable energy market is a pittance. The latest modelling on the RET demonstrated that the new Small Scale Renewable Scheme (to start from 1 Jan 2011) will cost an average household (using approx. 17kWh per day) approx. $2.20 extra per year in electricity.

The other main mechanism driving small scale (feed-in tariffs or FiTs) differs state by state by in Victoria the modelling showed that it would cost an average household less than $1 extra per year on their bill. We argued that you could have a 250MW gross FiT for small scale which would cost around $7 per average household per year extra.

One key thing here is that if people get their electricity consumption down, they will contribute less to these mechanisms. Plus we are looking at a future with rising electricity prices.

Ultimately, the international evidence is that FiTs are more cost effective and efficienct than RET (quota) systems and so if we were starting over again, you'd drive everything thru a FiT. Yes you are still driving more expensive technology, but this gap is closing; with a carbon price will close significantly more; plus there are network benefits (peak time generation, avoided losses, deferred network augmentation) plus there is the positive social impact. No, not every household should have a PV system, but yes we should be continuing to support this industry for the number of reasons above (plus jobs) and support people who want to invest in it, given the miniscule overall cost to society.

Cheers, Damien.

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 2:02:35 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Hi Damien
Thanks for clarifying your position. I'm glad that you're on the RE side of fence, just like me. Your original post confused me to why you would support government inaction by presenting a different motivation behind the FIT than advertised. In fact you were completing the argument against weak policy. That the government is saying one thing and doing another, has been the the main discussion on this thread so far, in particular about how the WA State owned electricity retailer is treating the FIT. I agree that the FIT is ineffective in its current form, and that government should put their hands deeper in their pockets and show a substantial shift in subsidy policy from fossil to RE.

Even though the MRET is commonly used by small RE, I believe that apart from the solar multiplier fiasco, commercial RE has been the main benefactor of the scheme.

One thing I suggested to SEDO when the WA FIT was being developed, was to allow residential customers to participate via a centralized RE installation, rather than a per household installation. The effect would be that consumers could participate at any level they could afford, (ie from $200 to $50,0000), in a locally centralized PV or wind installation that was specifically built for that purpose, instead of small costly PV installs on a south facing roof. The other thing I proposed instead of a NET tariff was to continue to allow RE households to pay standard fossil tariffs for their own consumption, including their own RE, whilst allowing all RE generated regardless of were and by whom it was consumed to be paid the FIT. This would mean that you would be paid between 10-25ckWh extra for what you consumed yourself under a NET FIT. Basically you would end up with a de-coupled RE FIT, that does not force RE households to effectively buy their own RE energy back at FIT + REBS, due to the potential export loss from your own consumption via the NET scheme. It would also work nicely with the COAG principles and the locally centralized RE installations that I also proposed. Overall I think it is also fairer than a Gross scheme.

I realise that REC's are calculated per MWh, however it just so happens that if you replace one MWh of brown coal generation with RE you get a reduction of about 1 ton CO2. So long the RE generation replaces coal generation the effect is nearly the same. With natural gas it is only 150kg/MWh so the effect is less. Unluckily for us most base load generation is still coal and a MWh replaced will most likely equate to 1 ton CO2 reduced.

BTW we are having a similar discussion on the "Climate Change - where to from here" if you are interested. I also partially addressed your issue of environmental externalities. I put it this way: all fossil powered economies, including ours, will cease at the hand of a 100% fossil emissions reduction. Emissions reduction and wealth through fossils are mutually exclusive of each other. We need to get rid of fossils as an economic engine in order to change it to a RE economic engine, and this will come at a cost.

BTW spot on with your comments regarding expanding the FIT to enable RE. We would just need some commercial incentives as well to see a real improvement in emissions.

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 3:37:40 am from IP #
Damien
Member

Hi again Jeffblogs,

Love your idea re: a centralised RE installation. This is something we have been looking at in here recently and our thoughts are that a FiT for community / medium scale (i.e. 1MW - 10MW class) would be a great mechanism to drive this (indeed, this is how community scale projects are so successful throughout many parts of Europe).

Community / medium scale renewables are a great way to build social licence within communities for renewables, allow community ownership structures, and as you say, take advantage of better economies of scale than can be achieved thru household rooftop installations. The Victorian Government is about to set up a Working Group looking at how medium scale RE developments might work and we will be on this group, highlighting the benefits of FiTs in paticular. Perhaps some joint lobbying of the WA govt along similar lines would not go astray?

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 11:32:41 pm from IP #
DodgyTech
Member

Hi all,
not sure if i am correct in saying this but a conclusion on our troubles could be due to the Mr C B trying to make a budget surplus?

In Perth we've had the two electricity power hikes and now the REBS gone down to 7c, to perhaps not hurt the future dividends that is paid from synergy/horizon to the state govt.
Solar power perceived as a 'threat' to the bottomline of synergy, hence the drop in REBS.

comes back to the $?

Posted Wednesday 12 Jan 2011 @ 11:16:38 pm from IP #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.