Home » CleanTech Bites » The huge energy cross-subsidy Queensland consumers don’t see

The huge energy cross-subsidy Queensland consumers don’t see

Queensland electricity consumers are often reminded of the so-called “huge” cost of subsidies for rooftop solar and other renewable energy sources.

But the biggest subsidy of all is not one that is visible on the electricity bill. In fact, it represents just one line in the state budget – $561 million to deliver centralised, fossil fuel generation to centres outside the heavily populated south-east corner of the state.

stock-footage-empty-country-road-zoom-out-in-middle-of-passing-lines-revealing-wind-turbines-and-power-lines

The size of the subsidy is not new, but it does warrant highlighting. Because for more than half a billion dollars a year, there is huge potential to tap in and build new technologies, such as solar, wind, battery storage and micro-grids.

The subsidy has various names such as the equalisation, or the Uniform Tariff Policy, of the consumer service obligation. But it effectively delivers a subsidy of around $800 a customer to regional areas.

In some remote parts of the state still attached to the grid, the subsidy may be two or three times the bill paid. And it won’t get smaller, because it is forecast to grow to $573 million, to $629 million and then to $661 million in the next three financial years.

“We’ve committed $561.2 million to subsidise regional Queensland electricity prices, to ensure that customers across regional Queensland pay a similar amount for their electricity to those in South East Queensland,” energy minister Mark Bailey said in a release last week accompanying the budget papers.

“These subsidies are important to households in regional Queensland because the Palaszczuk government knows the importance of ensuring a family in areas including Townsville, Cairns and Mount Isa and in other rural and regional communities pay a similar amount for their electricity than a household in Brisbane.”

Western Australia has a similar subsidy, also running at more than $500 million a year, although that benefits consumers in the main metropolitan regions who still do not pay the real cost of power supplied by the grid and dominated by fossil fuel generation.

WA, has however, implemented a series of reforms designed to repeal explicit fossil fuel subsidies, and to redesign the grid to accommodate more distributed generation.

This includes encouraging solar and battery storage, which its energy minister Mike Nahan says is the future of energy, and the network operator considering a future of micro-grids and “thin” connections to reduce the onerous cost of transporting electricity from a central source to customers hundreds of kilometres away.

Networks in South Australia and even Queensland’s Ergon Energy have a similar view, recognising that servicing remote and regional towns with local generation would reduce costs significantly.



Progress, however, is painfully slow, particularly due to the host of regulations and revenue prescriptions that appear to encourage networks to build more poles and wires rather than opt for cheaper and more efficient alternatives such as solar and storage.

And the awkward question remains for Queensland – why isn’t the government working quickly to reduce the size of the subsidies by encouraging more distributed generation?

Part of the reason may be that it remains the owner of the electricity assets – both the network operators, and the main coal and gas generators. Labor has a target of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030, and is already seeking to fast-track the construction of at least three large-scale solar farms, but until it can tackle the big cross subsidy to regional consumers, it has barely scratched the surface of what is possible.

Comments

16 responses to “The huge energy cross-subsidy Queensland consumers don’t see”

  1. MaxG Avatar
    MaxG

    “why isn’t the government working quickly to reduce the size of the subsidies” because they are in bed with the coal industry, the old system, revenue raising, etc.

    1. Brunel Avatar
      Brunel

      There are no coal power stations in South AUS.

      So at least South AUS can get rural areas to go off-grid.

  2. Lightfoot Avatar
    Lightfoot

    $500 Million a year gone up in smoke is the status quo.
    We could install at least 170 to 200MW of utility scale solar farms for that money, and by doing so for 10 years, we would have a solid 2GW distributed solar power station in QLD. I think that’s a much better option, don’t you?

    1. john Avatar
      john

      Yes true and the result would be cheaper power for all both the bush and the heavily populated areas.

    2. Dispassionate Avatar
      Dispassionate

      Who pays for it?

  3. frostyoz Avatar
    frostyoz

    The subsidy started as a “postage-stamp” scheme – just as you would pay the same price to post a letter 1km or 1,000km, someone thought it was a good idea that power carried 1,000km to a remote part of the grid should be charged the same price.

    These days the government is not cutting the subsidy, because it protects the government-owned network and generators from off-grid generation, that would be cost-effective if the full cost of the grid was passed through.

    If the government was not so wedded to the idea of owning the grid assets, it might also not be so wedded to the idea of subsidising their real cost from taxpayer monies.

    1. Dispassionate Avatar
      Dispassionate

      The government not so wedded to the idea of owning grid assets???
      It isn’t the government that is wedded it is the voting population of Queensland!
      How quickly everyone seems to forget!

  4. Alen T Avatar
    Alen T

    I would say that the government is doing quite a bit and driving change in the energy space. The 50% target with the biofuel mandate is a big undertaking for one department (DEWS). As this is a non issue politically, it’s logically for this not [yet] to be on their priority list.
    The Ergon and Energex merger further complicates this, as resources are again focused on other things. Give it time. Change is slow to start, but once it does it will take off quite quickly.

  5. George Michaelson Avatar
    George Michaelson

    Social Equity motivations are good. If we change the model to preference smaller grids and local power, we still need social equity adjustments. Universal Service Obligations are the backbone of GPs, Nurses, Teachers being able to raise families in the bush.

    Folks, I know it ain’t modern but truly, we need to be prepared to spend this money. Lets not spend it stupid, agree: lets review how its spent. But arguing NOT to spend equalization money to get bush and city costs to consumers to some kind of almost-parity is just wrong.

  6. Dispassionate Avatar
    Dispassionate

    “$561 million to deliver centralised, fossil fuel generation to centres outside the heavily populated south-east corner of the state.”
    It wouldn’t matter if it was utility solar or fossil fuel generation the costs of transport are the same ie. coal fired vs solar farm in the same place face the same transportation costs.

  7. Leigh Ryan Avatar
    Leigh Ryan

    Large scale solar or wind distributing electricity over the same distances face the same issue the fact is every rural town should be producing it’s own power needs as should isolated farms etc, just switching to massive solar or wind or even tidal power production is only good for heavily populated areas, we need a program that both subsidizes the cost and encourages the building of local power production, eventually most of the high voltage lines can be dismantled completely and that $1/2 billion plus cost to taxpayers can be spent on health and education and for a rural town with it’s own power station run by the council it’s a new revenue stream for local government however the way things are going that opportunity will be lost as so many of our rural people invest in solar & battery storage and will not want any part of the whole idea and it’s all because old out-dated and extremely costly industries wont to maintain the status quo a battle they have already lost and that includes government ministers who’s only interest is the revenue they generate from maintaining a dinosaur.

    1. frostyoz Avatar
      frostyoz

      Actually it’s not the high voltage lines that are the largest part of the network cost. The south-east has those without subsidy. Nor the rural townships that have similar distribution costs to other suburban areas.

      The really high cost that leads to the subsidy is the cost of long thin strings of power lines to serve remote farms, that would be more efficiently served by off-grid solutions.

  8. Reality Bites Avatar
    Reality Bites

    As usual the Renew bandwagon mostly has no clue. Most of the posters below think this is a subsidy to the fossil fuel generators, but that is not true. Building renewables even on a distributed basis would make no difference or even make it far more expensive. The cost is simply the equalisation of what it takes to distribute power from Normanton to Tweed Heads and ensure that there is a uniform price for consumers. Communities can and currently are looking at isolated systems, however I personally believe that those that do disconnect, who end up with a community based system, managed by local elected committees, will end in tears. Not sure how long the subsidy system will last as it is now a significant cost, unfortunately the alternative is that those that live in regional areas would have to pay the real cost and whether they like it or not look at distributed energy systems.

    1. Giles Avatar

      Stubborn and ignorant as ever, eh Philip? Why don’t you check out what Western Power and the WA government are saying. They are in exactly the same situation – similar subsidy, similar population. If you talk to Western Power and the other networks they will tell you it is a heck of a lot cheaper to service in local grids and networks, and the reliability will probably be improved because of less outages due to storms, bushfires etc. Reality might bite you one day.

    2. Giles Avatar

      Oh, and this is what Ergon said. https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/2014/ergon-energy-looks-to-take-some-customers-off-the-grid-34461
      But hey, they just the network operator and the retailer, so what would they know? Another study pointed to 40 towns being cheaper to take off grid than remain connected to the network. But’s lets cheer for centralised coal generators anyway.

      1. Reality Bites Avatar
        Reality Bites

        Of course the government and Ergon would like to reduce the CSO. If I was in one of those 40 towns and Ergon came out and said have we got a deal for you, you would need to look very closely at exactly what they were offering, for now and in the future. Buy in now and, in even 5 years time, the community might be locked into a 20 year contract that was not the best deal. Yes Giles exactly what do they know!

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