Finding the truth in power bills

It’s obvious that the conservative state governments are joining with the Tony Abbott-led federal opposition to cause political pain to the Gillard government over the carbon tax. That’s why they are directing electricity retailers to show the tax as a separate item in your electricity bill. The NSW approach is to say in red: “NSW Government estimates that federal carbon tax and green energy schemes add about $315 a year to a typical 7MWh household bill – see ipart.nsw.gov.au.”

How deceptive. First off, you might like to know the exact amount according to the power use for the last quarter – but apparently the retailers said this was too much effort. So you’ll have $315 embedded in your mind whatever your power consumption. Secondly, no mention of the compensation that most households will receive – perhaps they could refer to an ‘average’ or link to the section of the IPART report that states it? No way – this is a propaganda exercise.

What they also won’t be showing is the real cause of the large power price rises, now and in the future. The carbon price and other green schemes (which are 10 per cent of the bill) will contribute much less to rising prices than new (and unnecessary) investment in the ‘poles and wires’ networks which are government-owned in NSW and Queensland. This is currently running at $15 billion per year, the largest proportion of it in NSW, and it will continue to increase for years after the one-off small impact of the carbon price. Network costs account for 40 per cent of your bill.

And under the National Electricity Market rules, the more the state-owned networks spend, the more revenue they earn, and the more they can pay in dividends to the NSW and Queensland governments. Over the past three years the networks have paid the NSW government over $500 million per year — money which comes out of consumers’ pockets – some of which could have easily been avoided by mainstream energy efficiency efforts. Is the government planning to also put this fact on household bills?

The misleading picture the states want to present fits well into a political campaign based on the position that a carbon price is unnecessary, but it should have no place in power bills nor should it inveigle the regulators.

Total Environment Centre has obtained advice from the Environmental Defenders Office that the federal government could use its powers under the Consumer Law (which is part of the Competition and Consumer Act, 2010) to stop this fiddling with our bills. The minister in charge of Competition Policy can gazette an ‘information standard’ for any product or service. Clearly he can set out how a power bill might show the various components objectively in contrast to a politically driven piece of quarterly advertising.

The power bill rort is running in tandem with a concerted attack on state-based climate change policies, because we will have a carbon price;, the federal renewable energy target (RET), and ‘green tape’.

Make no mistake – this is about turning back 17 years of advances on environment protection.

The conservative states expect Abbott to be elected and, having terminated their climate policies, have no intention of reinstating them when the federal coalition disbands the clean energy package and possibly the 20 per cent RET. And there is a good chance that the alternative climate policies under an Abbott-led government won’t transpire (due to budget cuts).

The result is an effective climate policy-free zone. As a consequence, citizen and environment movements will be operating much more outside the tent with governments and business in their sights.

Jeff Angel is executive director of Total Environment Centre – www.tec.org.au

Comments

15 responses to “Finding the truth in power bills”

  1. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    It is not widely known that wind power has the effect of lowering the electricity pool price. Dismantling incentives for wind power and other clean energy is not going to help with electricity prices.
    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-wind-cutting-energy-costs

  2. Beat Odermatt Avatar
    Beat Odermatt

    I am not sure if censorship as promoted by some is the right way to defend a bad and unpopular tax! Freedoms of expression and democratic rights have always been the big danger to compliance to political correctness.

    1. John Avatar
      John

      Of course, propaganda is not the way to promote the idea that there is no need to address Climate Change ….or maybe you think it is???
      Leaving out important information is as undemocratic as censorship – through both mechanisms the public has less information to use to make decisions.

    2. John Avatar
      John

      …or perhaps you are in favour of a political “Beat” up.

    3. Chris Fraser Avatar
      Chris Fraser

      The NSW Government are Abbort-sycophants and quite retarded.

      1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
        Beat Odermatt

        If you are talking about “retarded” in regards to the NSW, then how retarded would be the Bob Brown-Julia Gillard Government? I think it would need somebody to study a lifetime the science of stupidity and lunacy to come up with something “retarded” as the carbon tax. The carbon tax was one of the cats tossed amongst the pidgins by Bob Brown. He knew that the carbon tax would help destroy his biggest enemy, the Labor party.

        1. Chris Fraser Avatar
          Chris Fraser

          Haha, no comment on Julia. Honestly, though, why the NSW Government campaign against renewables ? I take retarded as the literal meaning of being a bit impeded, or slow to understand wind and solar. They have no credibility if they participate in complete obfuscation of the message;-

          https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/2012/bipartisan-support-for-ret-finally-crumbles-54480

          1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
            Beat Odermatt

            I have no problem in agreeing that anybody opposing renewable energy can be called “retarded”. Therefore the Bob Brown-Julia Gillard carbon tax is aiming at a new level of stupidity by actually paying the coal mining industry. I am sure we have stupid people in industry and government desperately trying to proof the earth is flat. However I find haven’t found anything as stupid as the anti-environmental carbon tax!

  3. Liz Johnston Avatar
    Liz Johnston

    @Beat. Censorship no. Truth from governments yes. Perhaps that’s asking too much. But could we at least stop deliberately misleading scaremongering in this case?

    1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
      Beat Odermatt

      Liz, who do you mean is scaremongering? Do mean Bob Brown scaremongering Julia Gillard in giving in to his carbon tax? Do you mean some carbon emitters scaremongering about a disaster of a low carbon economy? Do you mean some narrow minded brain washed followers of political correct pseudo-science scaremongering about the danger of independent thinking? If we have an environmental issuer we all can work together to find a good solution. The carbon tax is only a dirty band aid letting people pay to pollute. It will delay the introduction of true environmental reform and delay the introduction of a low carbon economy. Have high taxes on booze and smokes stopped smoking and binge drinking?

  4. Dermot Avatar
    Dermot

    Thanks Jeff – yes, the Australia Energy Market Commission (AEMC) December 2011 report notes, that:

    1. the LRET (1.8%) and SRES (0.5%) contribute around 2.3% (with a carbon price)of the total residential electricity price; and

    2. the carbon price is around 8.9% of energy bills (http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=24612).

    It is interesting that the AEMC (See table 3.1 of their 2011 Report titled “Possible Future Retail Electricity Price Movements: 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2014 on page 6) indicate that in all but one of the price components of the national domestic electricity bill the contribution to domestic bills actually reduces with a carbon price (save wholesale costs).

    Interesting point about the ACCC – wonder if they looked at Origin’s ASX Announcement a week or so ago claiming that the cost of the SRES is $40 per STC and they pass this onto consumers as a basis for their argument that the RET should be amended – as in reality they would purchase STCs at market cost in the secondary market from REC Agents with forward contracts (i.e. spot price average probably $20-25 dollars).

    And speaking to a street shop vendor in Martin Place Sydney yesterday (so hearsay) – he informed me that a Liberal/National Minister was complaining to him about Abbott telling the NSW Government not to take the Federal Infrastructure on offer for political reasons and that he had had quite a verbal disagreement with him.

    1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
      Beat Odermatt

      You wrote:” And speaking to a street shop vendor in Martin Place Sydney yesterday (so hearsay) – he informed me that a Liberal/National Minister was complaining to him about Abbott telling the NSW Government not to take the Federal Infrastructure on offer for political reasons and that he had had quite a verbal disagreement with him.”
      Please give facts and don’t try simple minded tactics of spreading rumors.

      1. Dermot Avatar
        Dermot

        Mr Odermatt – that is why I referred to it as “hearsay”.

        Go easy on the personal abuse Mr Odermatt: it reduces one’s credibility.

        1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
          Beat Odermatt

          Dermot! YOU did mention “hearsay” and as you should know, hearsay has always been the source of rumours. It would be good if you could refer to facts and not some “hearsay”. Spreading rumours is possible the worst possible attack on somebody’s credibility! Spreading of rumours is one of the worst possible personal abuses.

  5. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    Thanks Jeff for this interesting article.

    I wonder if you could elaborate on your statement “And under the National Electricity Market rules, the more the state-owned networks spend, the more revenue they earn, and the more they can pay in dividends to the NSW and Queensland governments. Over the past three years the networks have paid the NSW government over $500 million per year — money which comes out of consumers’ pockets”?

    Also an understanding/tutorial of how the NEM works in regard to merit order effect would be much appreciated.

    Frank

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