A fair and reasonable solar tariff… or fair reason to quit the grid?

The Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) is really making a name for themselves these days in suggesting tariff options for solar power systems that are completely out of step with the views of both the energy industry and the voting public.

First came the suggestion of changing to a gross feed-in tariff for Queensland solar power customers in September that was roundly rejected by all and sundry. In an attempt to later explain away the suggestion the authority said that they’d “discussed the option of gross metering in order to highlight that PV customers on a net metered tariff are able to avoid a disproportionate amount of network costs by minimising their reliance on grid-sourced electricity.”

It’s almost as if solar power customers are trying to minimise their reliance on the grid.

In the recently released QCA Draft Report “Estimating a Fair and Reasonable Solar Feed-in Tariff for Queensland” it was noted that, “The majority of submissions, including those from retailers, clean energy associations, PV associations, customer groups and the distributors strongly opposed a move to gross metering.”

After misreading industry sentiment for a gross feed-in tariff the QCA again found itself in hot water over their suggestion that a “more cost reflective (fixed and variable) network prices for PV customers could reduce the extent to which other customers must pay for the network costs PV customers avoid as a result of in-house PV power consumption.” In other words, a tariff levied against solar power customers just for the privilege of having a grid-connected solar power system.

After these “improved network charges” were reported in the Courier Mail and elsewhere, public reaction was swift with over 700 comments on the Courier Mail’s website. The public outcry was strong enough that the QLD energy minister Mark McArdle issued a statement the same day to say that “there will be no fixed charge of any sort on people using solar.”

In a Nine News TV interview I did on the same day, my comment was that this looked like a “tax” on solar customers. After promoting the uptake of solar technology for years it seems like we’re in the middle of a huge backlash from governments and energy industry incumbents around the country. However while the utilities, electricity generators and retailers have huge political clout, they’re now heavily outnumbered by voters with solar installed. And as we all know voters don’t like new taxes.”

But these aren’t the only problems with the QCA’s position on what constitutes “fair and reasonable”. Despite ample proof that the uptake of solar power around the country has been quite evenly spread across the full range of socio-economic classes, and in some cases higher in lower-income suburbs than in the wealthy suburbs, there’s still an undercurrent of bias to the QCA’s comments.

In the preamble of the draft report they wrote, “When those doing the paying are likely those least able to afford it and those enjoying the benefits are those likely to be most able to afford to meet their true costs, then something is truly wrong. “I’m starting to get the feeling that there really is something truly wrong here, but I don’t think it’s the modest impact of solar power on rising electricity costs.

Another example of the QCA’s general anti-solar stance is the statement that, “customers receiving the 8 cent per kWh are also being adequately compensated, at a rate that is above the estimated fair and reasonable value estimated by the Authority.“ In other words if a solar power customer receives 8c/kWh for their excess solar power they should be thankful because the QCA calculates that they’re really only eligible for 6.81c/kWh in South East Queensland region. How dare those solar fat-cats pocket an extra 1.19c per kWh!

With such a hostile attitude towards the solar power-owning public it’s little wonder that some of the public’s comments have returned the favour. A great comment left on the Courier Mail website by Donna of Logan said, “the government push for everyone to get solar to save money, then they realised it was costing them so they cut the buy back price 8c/kW. Now this. Well if this comes into place I will be getting the panels disconnected and arrange for someone to connect them to batteries and run the house off them and I’m sure many others will too, and there is such a company because I heard their radio ad on the radio the other day, they are going to be run off their feet I’m sure.”

I know the radio ad Donna’s referring to well because I recorded it myself. In reaction to the growing suspicion and anger the public’s showing to the electricity industry we’re now heavily promoting solar power systems with energy storage as a path towards energy independence for our customers.

My own comment on the same thread was this: “If it gets too expensive to connect solar power systems to the grid I wonder how long it will take for people to start disconnecting their solar power system from the grid? Off-grid solar works great and then you never have to talk to an electricity retailer again. And if people disconnect how will the utilities cover the revenue shortfall then? They’ll be forced to increase the power prices for everyone still on the network, which will encourage more people to disconnect. Seems like a vicious cycle.”

Dane Muldoon is head of commercial sales at The Solar Guys

Comments

10 responses to “A fair and reasonable solar tariff… or fair reason to quit the grid?”

  1. Warwick Avatar
    Warwick

    The main issue here is understanding that on a metered kWh network charge that those who have net-metering PV will pay disproportionately less than those who don’t have PV. This is unfair because you could have two identical homes (except one has PV) both requiring the same capacity (and hence cost) from the network but the one with PV will have a lower network bill. So the pricing model for networks is becoming broken with additional PV penetration and these changes will make some unhappy.

    It would be refreshing if RenewEconomy actually interviewed a network company to explain how their charging works.

    1. David Avatar
      David

      Warwick,
      our house has a small PV installation and we have relatively low energy use. At peak times (say 3-4pm on hot summer days) we would be a net exporter of energy.
      Our neighbours have at least 6 airconditioners and a swimming pool, all of which would be running at this same time. Both of us pay the same fixed supply charge. To me, this situation seems inequitable. If I were to turn on every device in the house I could not approach the usage of my neighbour.
      For us, the fixed supply charge is not much less than the cost of our energy usage. The PV directly offsets only about 30% of our energy use. The rest is drawn from the grid and paid for like everyone else. We then get a rebate based on the power we export to the grid. The degree to which we “avoid” network charges is only proportional to the directly offset energy. In other words it is, at most, 30% of our usage.
      To make the arrangement fully representative of cost it would be necessary to have a fixed cost based on peak current draw.

  2. Rob Grant Avatar
    Rob Grant

    The step to moving off grid and onto baterry back up is still a large one but the technical and practical gaps are closing fast. The real incentive will come when utilities move to charging a fixed network charge, which is currently mooted. The utilities are still bound by a supply driven mentality and until they accept the realities of the new market, they will continue to lose ground.They may find a day in the not too distant future when they simply don’t have a market, or at least a market of sufficient scale to survive.

  3. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    With governments and utilities trying to put the squeeze on solar users it would not surprise me at all if a lot of them choose to go off-grid as soon as they can. I certainly will be!

  4. Mart Avatar
    Mart

    The main issue here is understanding that on a metered kWh network charge that those who SAVE ENERGY will pay disproportionately less than those who BURDEN THE NETWORK WITH HIGH USAGE. This is unfair because you could have two identical homes (except one IS ENERGY EFFICIENT) both HAVING the same capacity (and hence cost) from the network BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL REASONS but the one with LOWER USAGE will have a lower network bill.

    It would be refreshing if Warwick could explain which punitive charges he proposes for households who save energy and limit their electricity use.

  5. Chris Fraser Avatar
    Chris Fraser

    QCA stated implicitly that PV users were avoiding network costs that other consumers had to pay. However, if the idea is to avoid peak energy stress on the network, why wouldn’t you as a network manager prefer a distributed model of embedded generation ? During the worst summer afternoon peaks these last three years, the energy from my panels only went next door to my neighbours twin panasonic inverters. Which to me is only using my personal aerial pole-to-house wire and his own aerial wire. Both of them just thick copper core cables. What sort of value would you attach to my use of the network then ?

  6. Bolig i Tyrkia Avatar

    I’ve read several just right stuff here. Definitely price bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how so much attempt you set to create this type of fantastic informative site.

  7. www.yourtablethelp.com Avatar

    It’s actually a nice and useful piece of info. I am satisfied that you just shared this helpful information with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

  8. Flora Avatar

    Hеy thiѕ іs a nice bunch of aԁvіce,
    all іѕ fаctual and right
    on the spot.

  9. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    I’ve heard that retailers are lobbying for a fixed network charge to the property even if it is not connected to the grid. This is supposed to cover the costs or running the wires passed your property. Has anyone heard similar.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.