Should regulators protect consumers, or network operators? | RenewEconomy

Should regulators protect consumers, or network operators?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

QCA says compulsory time-of-use pricing for solar households expensive, ineffective, unfair and maybe illegal, but good for networks. Hooray!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Members of the solar PV industry are aghast at some of the findings of the Queensland Competition Authority’s final report on a “fair price for solar”, wondering if its intention is to protect consumers, or the operators of the electricity networks.

RenewEconomy produced a detailed analysis of the findings on Monday, which illustrated how the QCA was intent on focusing on the costs of solar PV – and the unsustainably high feed-in tariff (FiT) – but none of the benefits.

But one of the proposals of the QCA – that of obliging households with rooftop solar PV to move to time-of-use (ToU) pricing – has fuelled the ire of the solar industry.

The QCA considered a range of proposals to reduce the burden of the cost of the FiT on consumers, but its conclusions on the ToU proposal – recommending its adoption despite finding it would be ineffective, more expensive, inequitable, and contrary to the rules of the National Electricity Market, but would boost the revenues of network operators – are bewildering and contradictory.

In its report, the QCA concedes that compulsory ToU pricing for Queensland solar households in fact it could encourage these households to export more self-produced electricity – at extra cost to all consumers – because of the structure of  ToU tariffs (known as Tariff 12 in Queensland).

Amazingly, Tariff 12 offers a lower daytime (7am to 4pm) rate than the flat rate of the standard Tariff 11, providing a greater incentive for rooftop solar owners in Queensland to exporting electricity during daylight hours – the opposite of what the QCA is trying to achieve.

The QCA says one way to fix that is to bump up the ToU rate to  more than the 44c/kWh tariff, but it says that given the move to “cost reflective” tariffs, this “is unlikely to be a sensible solution,.”

Furthermore, the QCA says that a ToU tariff might penalise  a customer that has an inflexible consumption profile and mandating that they be billed on a ToU basis could produce “undesirable and inequitable outcomes. “

And it notes that the National Electricity Rules, and the COAG principles, state that solar PV customers should not have tariffs which mean they are treated less favourably than people without PV.

For all that, the QCA still recommends that the government adopt specific TOU tariffs on solar PV customers.

Why? The only benefit it cites is that Tariff 12 structures have a higher fixed charge, meaning that the state-owned networks pocket more money – even if overall cost to consumers from the FiTs is not reduced, and may actually increase.

It’s yet to be seen if the government takes up the recommendation. It is apparently considering other measures such as putting a cap on the output or rooftop solar that could qualify for the 44c/kWh tariff.

But the solar industry is dumbfounded by the QCA conclusion – and not for the first time. It puts those comments by NRG CEO David Crane, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers and SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive  – about the battle about to be played out by network operators and solar generators in the US – and presumably in the rest of the world – into some context.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Warwick 7 years ago

    If people were genuinely concerned about consumers and inefficient cross-subsidies then they would be arguing that networks have cost reflective pricing i.e. a demand or capacity payment. That way people who have inefficient air-conditioning pay more and those who have solar that does actually reduce network demand would be better off, just like those who reduce demand through insulation and efficiency and are receiving little reduction in network charges for their efforts.

    Perhaps it’s time to interview a network business for their perspective as they likely best understand their networks…

  2. John P Morgan 7 years ago

    Yet more reason for Queenslanders to consider going ‘off grid’.
    Conservative state administrations are clearly interested only in protecting the BaU structure.

  3. Roy Ramage 7 years ago

    This should come as no surprise to anybody. At some point as the number of houses under panel grows government subsidies will be stopped. Meanwhile distributors will be looking to buy th cleanest energy they can or be penalised. So all governments state and fedral would do well to enact laws that encourage distributors to pay homes and businesses under panel for the energy they generate. Until governments realise that renewable energy and our economy are inextricably linked we will keep heading towards our own Cyprus moment.

  4. Ron Barnes 7 years ago

    Their will always be a need for the Grid system , All of us Solar Producers, help to save the energy suppliers money from grid losses by adding power to the grid at day time all over the grid.
    It seems a commission which suppose to represent the consumers is so much on the generaters side they have become very bias by favering the fossel fuel generaters.
    Their not on the Consumers side at all.
    The fossel fuel generaters winge about solar putting up their costs is bunkum as the cost is mainly born by the houreholder them selves so lets assume the grid system purchace solar power would be cheaper for them than to geherate when transport of fuels mining of same are included into their cost structure . The price of coal at present is controlled by demand so over-supply of it has caused a drop in proffits to the miner but has not droped the price of electricty. One wonders why they never reduce the price when they always increase on the basis of increased costs . But never lower prices in times of excessive proffits.

Comments are closed.

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