We, too, once supported the dogma that any export price would be bad to the bone. Two things changed our mind.
If you assume climate change is playing a significant role in the Energy Security Board’s deliberations over the optimum design of the future market, you would be wrong.
Australia’s regulatory framework needs to catch up with the fact that climate change means that we can’t use the past to predict the future.
Consumers might get paid to have batteries that will “island” from the grid, and EVs that can deliver power when needed, as part of plans to make networks more resilient.
Peer-to-peer trading, VPPs, vehicle to home and grid, community batteries, solar gardens: the possibilities are many, but they will be stuck in the slow lane without fundamental grid reform.
Community-scale batteries are all the rage on Western Australia’s government-run grid. And what’s not to like? But what about the rest of Australia?
Fundamental to our proposal is the idea of net market benefit: Where rooftop solar exports create value greater than their costs, then costs can be recovered from all consumers.
The current structure and governance of the electricity market in Australia is not fit for purpose to meet known and unknown challenges.
AEMC seems to view distributed energy as a problem rather than an opportunity when it comes to maintaining system resilience in the face of weather events or cyberattacks.
One solution to the risk of bushfires is to rely more on each other for our energy supply.