Recommendation to curtail Solar Bonus Scheme rejected by Qld govt | RenewEconomy

Recommendation to curtail Solar Bonus Scheme rejected by Qld govt

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Queensland govt rejects Productivity Commission recommendations to review 50% RET and cut short Solar Bonus Scheme, as measures to rein in soaring electricity prices.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Queensland government has ruled out making retrospective cuts to the state’s Solar Bonus Scheme, immediately after the measure was recommended in a report into driving down power prices.

The Queensland Productivity Commission’s Electricity Pricing Inquiry Draft Report, released on Wednesday, made 54 recommendations to government, including a review of its 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, and cutting short its Solar Bonus Scheme ahead of the planned 2028 closure.


“There are some elements of the report that will be immediately ruled out by this government because they do cut across election commitments we made to the people of Queensland,” Treasurer Curtis Pitt said.

The report – which was commissioned in April 2015, on the back of electricity price rises of more than 80 per cent since 2006/7 – also recommended the government commit to deregulation of retail power prices in the state’s south-east almost immediately.

The Productivity Commission said that price was “acting as a barrier to customers realising the benefits of innovation evident in other de-regulated markets.”

However, the Produtivity Commission, while acknowledging that most of the power price rises came from increased network charges, did not recommend major changes to network management, apart from supporting the consolidation of the two network – Ergon and Energex – into a bigger monopoly company.

It also “cautioned” against the adoption of new business models that reflect the adoption of new technology.

The QPC recommended the government should not intervene in the market to achieve its one million residential solar rooftops target, or the additional 3000MW of residential and commercial PV target, by 2020.

It said that, without intervention, the 3000MW amount had been projected to be met by 2022, two years later than the government’s target date.

The QPC also said it believed the Solar Bonus Scheme had done its job by stimulating the local industry and helping to make solar more affordable, and should therefore be considered early closure.

“The QPC estimates that by the middle of 2020, most participants will have recovered the costs of their systems,” there report said.

The report also claimed that the Solar Bonus Scheme had added around $89 to an average household bill and around 9 per cent for an average business customer in 2015-16.

On the Queensland government’s 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2020, the QPC said its modelling suggested an average increase in retail electricity prices of 0.5 per cent for households and 0.3 per cent for industry – and a reduction of 0.7 per cent for commercial customers – for the period 2015–16 to 2034–35 was required to meet the target.

“The report notes the benefits of a national approach rather than Queensland ‘going it alone’,” it said.

The report also recommended preparing regional Queensland for market competition, by encouraging more retail companies to the market.

The Palaszczuk government’s rapid-fire decision to rule out both the recommended early closure of the Solar Bonus Scheme and the review of the state’s RET has been welcomed by the renewables industry.

“The Queensland Government is absolutely right to rule out this crazy idea on day one,” said the Australian Solar Council in a statement on Wednesday.

“Queensland families made major investment decisions in good faith on the basis of government guaranteed contracts for the life of the Solar Bonus Scheme.

“The Productivity Commission is completely out of touch if it thinks it’s ok for the Government to tear up contracts with hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders.

“As we’ve demonstrated time and time again, the Solar Council will stop any attempt to retrospectively cut feed-in tariffs. This is a threshold issue,” the ASC said.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Rob Campbell 5 years ago

    It continues to amaze that Queenslander’s still accept the recovery of the 44cent FIT as a legitimate electricity cost. N.S.W., with their 60cent FIT put aside funds specifically to pay for their generous scheme, whilst Qld governments decided to tax electricity consumers via an excise on electricity. We should all get our heads together and launch a constitutional challenge against this charge. Remember when the courts ruled that state excise on petrol and other items was deemed illegal and the feds started collecting it? Are Queenslander’s aware that they are pay the 3X3 road tax that NSW motorists were slugged after the crashes on the Pacific Highway over twenty-five years ago (to duplicate the Pacific Highway within 3 years)? That’s when Peter Beatie ramped up car rego because our petrol was cheap and the very next year Anna Bligh kept the federal rebate of 3 cents/litre making us now the most expensive place to run a car. I wrote about this illegal tax a year or so ago, see it here:

    and here:

  2. john 5 years ago

    The take out I see is this.
    {It also “cautioned” against the adoption of new business models that reflect the adoption of new technology.}
    I take it as DO not adopt new Technology.
    Further more get rid of New Technology because we live in 1880 not 2000 plus.
    Yes I agree the 44c per KwH is excessive however for those who put PV on their roofs they may actually break even by 2028 because they paid between $28k and $15K for the installation.
    Perhaps what should have happened is a better system which curtails the payment over years to a lower price i.e. after x years its 40 then 30 etc.
    As I understand it the present agreement is solid.

  3. trackdaze 5 years ago

    Sounds a bit like witch hunt, bad cop, good cop going on. Their proper meanies! Those humour less productivity commission says the government we would never do that given its in contract but we won’t dismiss the claim in order to keep the public thinking the 44centers are too blame.

    No mention of the crazy exhorbitant work practices or the obscene pay rates to the multitude of layers managment of the network?

  4. Suburbable 5 years ago

    “The report notes the benefits of a national approach rather than Queensland ‘going it alone’,”

    I think the only way we’re going to get ahead with renewables is for individual states to do exactly that, to ‘go it alone’ regardless of what the federal govt decides. We know which way they want to go, its up to us on a state, local council and individual level to decide which path we want to follow.

    It sounds like energy anarchy, but what choice is there when our elected government do not even try to represent the people that they are supposed to do the best for.

  5. R P 5 years ago

    I am one of the 44centers and my 2280 Watt system cost me just under $8000.00
    It has just finished paying for itself after the March 2011 install.
    The 44c as far as I know is a contract between me and the Qld government,
    As such if the Gov makes the contract null and void the I can put as much solar as I want on my roof and not have to worry about being over my allocated 2Kw contract.
    The way the feds are going with pensions I may spend dollars on a battery system totally separate from my grid supply.
    At this time there are no battery suppliers putting out prices on a package in my area.
    I live north of the Brisbane line so government assistance is very sparse.
    Love NQ, dearest insurance,registration,rates,water, etc.

  6. Ian 5 years ago

    The attrition rate for the 44c/KWH tariff is high and the overall contribution of houses with this tariff to the total installed distributed solar is getting less and less. This point has been discussed ad nauseum on this site. The government is so right to reject a proposed breach in contract. Unfortunately this old nugget keeps regurgitating like a mixture of stomach acid and bile, and probably will continue doing so. Those stubborn 44’ers who stick to their guns will become fewer and fewer in number until no-one will care about their plight and the government will quietly shut down the tariff without a public whimper.

    That the productivity commission even suggests such a move is a sign of their moral bankruptcy and makes one wonder about their other recommendations. Far from being an “over generous tariff”, the 44c is a yardstick of government decency. An agreement was made and it must be respected even if it hurts.

  7. Les Johnston 5 years ago

    Classic productivity commission performance acting in the 20th Century. Stifling innovation and propping up inefficient markets with red tape.

Comments are closed.

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