Electricity prices have killed the economy.

[KIWI-1]

Origin Energy chief says low carbon price will encourage future investment in coal-powered plants
One of Australia's biggest energy providers says carbon would have to be priced at about $40 a tonne before it would move away from developing new coal-fired power stations. The Federal Government wants to scrap the fixed carbon price and introduce an emissions trading scheme (ETS) linked to the European carbon market. The floating price would start a year early under the plan, dropping the carbon price from $25 a tonne to an estimated $6 based on Treasury forecasts. The Greens are outraged by the Government's move and say it will encourage more carbon pollution. Origin Energy's chief executive Grant King has told Inside Business a low carbon price would lead to future investment in coal rather than gas-powered plants. "If the price was always going to be $6 you'd be building coal-fired power stations," he said. "A carbon price of more like $40 is necessary to really swing the economics from building coal to gas. "Insofar as we rely on the carbon price to cause different decisions to be made, we've been very clear through this debate that $20, let alone $6, will not change the decision to build coal instead of gas." Mr King says the European scheme will impact on the carbon price in Australia. "And that means those decisions will be made as a confluence of both policy decisions, design decisions of the European scheme and the actual circumstances of European industry," he said. "Some hold the view that carbon prices will need to be much closer to $30 than $40 a tonne to get the sorts of underlining changes in a generation mix that is necessary. "My personal view is that the Europeans recognise that many of their industries are uncompetitive around energy costs and I think they will be very sensitive to burdening those industries with higher costs."

Practical differences between Labor, Coalition policies
But Mr King says the price of carbon in Europe would not be relevant if the Coalition wins the election. "That's why we have such a diverse range of outcomes and we can get by for a little while, putting off decisions while this all sorts itself out - but as an industry, we can't wait forever," he said. Mr King says the Government and Coalition carbon policies are similar in that both aim to bring down the cost of carbon to consumers. "The Coalition clearly intends to get rid of the carbon tax or scheme entirely and the Government's clearly trying to reduce the cost based on harmonisation with the European scheme. So I think to that level they look the same," he said. "The differences emerge because the Coalition scheme, as we understand it currently, would see that acquittal occur in Australia so they're committed to reducing carbon emissions in Australia.
"But of course under the scheme that currently exists and would be further amended by this latest announcement by Government, an increasing amount of permits would be sourced from overseas and that abatement would therefore occur overseas. "So that's where some quite significant differences in the practical effect of the scheme begin to emerge."

Uncertainty affecting renewable energy investment
Mr King says the "relative costs" to consumers of Australia's renewable energy target (RET), which is 20 per cent by 2020, will rise when the ETS comes in. "It's very important to say that the numbers that are being put out there in respect of benefit to customers of reducing carbon are right, broadly, so cost of energy will come down, but the relative cost of renewable will go up," he said. "We all do talk about 20 per cent by 2020 but it's actually a real number. It's not 20 per cent, it's a number, 41 terawatt hours. So our current view is that 20 per cent will be more like 27, 28 per cent, of that order. "That's much more than people were anticipating and that will have an impact on cost. "The second thing that will impact on cost to consumers is that as the cost of carbon goes down, consumers will benefit as has been promoted because the cost of energy will go down. "But the RET scheme, or the cost of providing renewable energy will remain the same and as a consequence, the relative cost of the RET scheme will increase as carbon prices come down. So in a sense, the relative disadvantage of that scheme increases as the carbon price lowers."

No incentive to invest in electricity generation
Mr King agrees that uncertainty over carbon has meant there has been very little recent investment in electricity generation. "The current RET scheme as it's configured is actually forcing more energy into the system because the target is higher than people thought it was going to be and that means people are disincentivised from investing in any other form of generation," he said. "Yet at the same time we would say that was not what was intended, it was never intended that RET provided that much energy. "It's equally right to say that with the continual change in carbon policy, it's very unclear as to what other forms of generation you ought to invest in as well because a change in carbon price from $24 to say $6 or $8 is a very material change in the relative cost in generation from coal, various types of coal, and gas. "So it does mean to the extent that investments were required, they will be delayed, in my view, until the position becomes clearer and we're in an industry where the investment cycles are long. "We invest for five, six, seven, eight, nine years out, so somewhere towards the end of the decade, even into the early 2020s, which sounds a long way away, that's where we'll see the consequence of uncertainty that sits around these sorts of policies today."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-2...-power/4833484

[glimmerman]

Years ago people in our area wanted to install water tanks for rain run off - council told them all to take it down because it robbed business from Sydney Water - move forward 15 years and now they are more than happy for people to use it because we ran into a massive drought and water shortages - but it shows the greed our government has - with the solar on roofs at first they would let you fit as much as you could, and get money back for what you fed back into the grid - now they limit what you can fit to your house so you can only cover (with a little extra) what you use with the solar panels because they lost too much money - it's purely greed driven, if someone wanted to set their house up to be "off grid" most of the year apart from times of dire need when they pay for it, that would surely be a plus - but like the cost of petrol, everything goes up and lots of it is government putting costs on top. I got my license when petrol was costing me 80c a liter - within two years it was over a $1.00, now a $1.80 and climbing, it's a never ending cycle, you work harder to earn more because your cost of living is so high, you pay more tax and everything keeps going up.
We have a refrigerator running during the day - both of us are at work, still paying $500 a quarter for electricity, it's crazy.
I also apologise if I insulted anyone earlier, these debates about climate change (like anything with several sides to the story are pointless) and we are all passionate in our beliefs and everyone should respect that.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by glimmerman

Years ago people in our area wanted to install water tanks for rain run off - council told them all to take it down because it robbed business from Sydney Water - move forward 15 years and now they are more than happy for people to use it because we ran into a massive drought and water shortages - but it shows the greed our government has -

Wait till they start charging people for the water in the tank.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

We shouldn't wait but I don't see a half-assed tax made up by a bunch of politicians being a good start.

Fully Arsed is much better than half

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Wait till they start charging people for the water in the tank.

They already do in some municipalities.
If Mum had a tank installed they'd charge her for the water she would be using because "it's potential run off for our reserves".
Corporate/government greed is the issue these days. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bowser22]

Originally Posted by zilo

Your assumptions are that the big companies pay the same retail rate as we do at home.


No they do not...they negotiate a lower kw rate for being bulk consumers.

Alcoa get their power for less than the cost of production in Victoria.

This is very true. A lot of large companies in Vic have agreements with the SEC for discounted power rates (I believe that Alcoa's pays around 14c per MW/h for Portland and maybe a tad less for Pt.Henry (they have their own power station for it)). From conversations I've had over the past year or two, most power companies would love large power consumers (ala Alcoa, plastic manufacturers) to close so they can reap larger profits from the same base load costs

[GASWAGON]

Well I don't know about anyone else but i'm trying to save as much money on car running costs, power running costs, food costs etc etc. We even got our natural gas line turned off today because we cannot afford to pay for the central heating.
Gas company tried to charge us $380 and the meter hasn't moved since the last bill... Things are just getting out of hand all these corporate companies charging like wounded bulls. I'm over it!

And bloody smart meters hav'nt helped the situation at all either!

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Lotte

They already do in some municipalities.
If Mum had a tank installed they'd charge her for the water she would be using because "it's potential run off for our reserves".
Corporate/government greed is the issue these days. Nothing more, nothing less.

Only if she applied for the rebate. Otherwise, how are they to know you've got a tank collecting rain.

Originally Posted by zilo

Well said....unlike the silly thread title.

My electricity bill has actually gone down.

I now use energy efficient lights that a nice Indian kid gave us for free in every room of the house, a hot water system that was installed with a rebate, and a new television that uses a 1/4 of what the old one used.

Oh and we got our whole house roof insulated FOR FREE.

We use a LOT less power now and our bill has gone down considerably.

On weekends our kwh rate is almost a giveaway price at 11c.

You do realise that you've paid for the so-called free roof insulation batts many times over in higher taxes and fees right?

Oh and my electricity consumption has halved in the past 18 months, has my power bill gone down... nope. Quite the opposite actually and I've had some words with the power company on several occasions about this.

[GASWAGON]

Its the poor people and the pensioners that are doing it the hardest.... Middle class can afford it just.....I'm o.k I have two old EFs on gas that I maintain myself and will have for a while yet so no new car debt over my head. Luckily I have some savings to help pay for power this winter. Some pensioners turn their lights off at 8 o'clock and go to bed cos they can't afford the power bills.... Its just NOT ON.

[ute83]

Originally Posted by EF_6

Well I don't know about anyone else but i'm trying to save as much money on car running costs, power running costs, food costs etc etc. We even got our natural gas line turned off today because we cannot afford to pay for the central heating.
Gas company tried to charge us $380 and the meter hasn't moved since the last bill... Things are just getting out of hand all these corporate companies charging like wounded bulls. I'm over it!

And bloody smart meters hav'nt helped the situation at all either!

Why are you thinking about buying a second hand Territory if you have trouble with your bills?????

[MarkAW]

This whole thread can be summed up in two words - Government Greed.

Consider these facts:

Prior to the 1980's Ausgrid, then called Sydney County Council (SCC) was owned by the 12 municipal councils that it supplied electricity to.

* The State Griener? Government decided to take control of electricity away from the Councils and turn it into a State asset. This included the poles, wires and switchgear for which they did not pay a single cent to local government.

* SCC changed its name to Sydney Electricity, amalgamated with St George, Mackellar and Brisbane Waters County Councils who were all in poor state financially and was forced to hand over $550M and $630M in interest bearing savings. The interest on these sums was previously used to maintain the network. Now the Gov. required Sydney Electricity to use loans from State Treasury with commercial rates of interest to maintain our network - guess who pays for that privalege.

* Sydney Electricity was forced to take over the 132kv assets from Transgrid (then called Electricity Commission ElCom) These assets, mostly steel lattice towers and HV transmission substations had reached the end of their working life and were dumped on Sydney Electricity to refurbish with the costs going to the public via electricity charges.

* In the 1990's all the electricity assets (distributors, transmission and generation) have been corpratised, ie they run as a separate business and charge each other for their services. Since then the generators have been making a killing as there is no real competition for their part. They just charge what they like and IPART actually put up with it.

* Sydney Electricity, now Ausgrid is forced to pay a return on assets to the State Government. This financial year its more than $1B and that is your money you pay in your electricity bill. Add in Endeavour Energy and Essential Energy for more than another $1B.

IF YOU STILL THINK THE ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY IS IS THE BAD PERSON HERE THEN RE-READ THIS POST.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

This whole thread can be summed up in two words - Government Greed.

Consider these facts:

Prior to the 1980's Ausgrid, then called Sydney County Council (SCC) was owned by the 12 municipal councils that it supplied electricity to.

* The State Griener? Government decided to take control of electricity away from the Councils and turn it into a State asset. This included the poles, wires and switchgear for which they did not pay a single cent to local government.

* SCC changed its name to Sydney Electricity, amalgamated with St George, Mackellar and Brisbane Waters County Councils who were all in poor state financially and was forced to hand over $550M and $630M in interest bearing savings. The interest on these sums was previously used to maintain the network. Now the Gov. required Sydney Electricity to use loans from State Treasury with commercial rates of interest to maintain our network - guess who pays for that privalege.

* Sydney Electricity was forced to take over the 132kv assets from Transgrid (then called Electricity Commission ElCom) These assets, mostly steel lattice towers and HV transmission substations had reached the end of their working life and were dumped on Sydney Electricity to refurbish with the costs going to the public via electricity charges.

* In the 1990's all the electricity assets (distributors, transmission and generation) have been corpratised, ie they run as a separate business and charge each other for their services. Since then the generators have been making a killing as there is no real competition for their part. They just charge what they like and IPART actually put up with it.

* Sydney Electricity, now Ausgrid is forced to pay a return on assets to the State Government. This financial year its more than $1B and that is your money you pay in your electricity bill. Add in Endeavour Energy and Essential Energy for more than another $1B.

IF YOU STILL THINK THE ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY IS IS THE BAD PERSON HERE THEN RE-READ THIS POST.

What/where are your sources for your claims?

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

What/where are your sources for your claims?

The 'claims' are fact. If you work in the electricity industry you will know these facts. The government makes about 40% profit based on the total bill. The retailer makes their chunk too. Along with the generator.

Consider this, the state government also wants to sell off the 'poles and wires'. In doing so, they get a one time only windfall of $10B by the time all the debt loaded onto the corporatised distributors (poles and wires) is paid off. In doing so, they lose revenue of $2B a year. That pays the wage for 25,000 teachers, policeman, nurses, clerical support staff.

The 'logic' is to pay off debt or borrow for Sydney road and rail projects. The debt costs / interest rate for the NSW government is about 4%. So, they'll sell an asset generating a 20% return to pay off debt that costs 4%. Dumb. The smartest move would be to borrow more at 4% and look for an asset making 20%

Not only that, but the buyers of the 'poles and wires' will most likely be foreign owned as have most recent purchases and we will increase our overseas indebtedness and there is usually clauses to make sure that the profitability doesn't go down for any period of time.

Right now, the peak of electricity investment (catchup from the non-investment from the late 1980's to early 2000's) is largely behind the industry. Prices are in fact tipped to now rise by CPI or less ~2.5% in 2013/14.

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by ute83

Why are you thinking about buying a second hand Territory if you have trouble with your bills?????

I have some investment money coming in later in the year........ hopefully.... Would'nt mind a new ride with latest tech LI gas system.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by phillyc

The 'claims' are fact. If you work in the electricity industry you will know these facts. The government makes about 40% profit based on the total bill. The retailer makes their chunk too. Along with the generator.

Consider this, the state government also wants to sell off the 'poles and wires'. In doing so, they get a one time only windfall of $10B by the time all the debt loaded onto the corporatised distributors (poles and wires) is paid off. In doing so, they lose revenue of $2B a year. That pays the wage for 25,000 teachers, policeman, nurses, clerical support staff.

The 'logic' is to pay off debt or borrow for Sydney road and rail projects. The debt costs / interest rate for the NSW government is about 4%. So, they'll sell an asset generating a 20% return to pay off debt that costs 4%. Dumb. The smartest move would be to borrow more at 4% and look for an asset making 20%

Not only that, but the buyers of the 'poles and wires' will most likely be foreign owned as have most recent purchases and we will increase our overseas indebtedness and there is usually clauses to make sure that the profitability doesn't go down for any period of time.

Right now, the peak of electricity investment (catchup from the non-investment from the late 1980's to early 2000's) is largely behind the industry. Prices are in fact tipped to now rise by CPI or less ~2.5% in 2013/14.

I'm not from NSW so I'm not aware of how the electricity industry has fared there. Here in Vic, the whole kit and kaboodle is privately owned. The SEC (State Electricity Commission) was privatised by Kennett in the 1990's and now the generating and transmission assets are privately owned (SP Ausnet rings a bell)...

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

The SEC (State Electricity Commission) was privatised by Kennett in the 1990's and now the generating and transmission assets are privately owned (SP Ausnet rings a bell)...

Depending on your area. SP Ausnet is one of four in Melbourne anyway.

But there was an article were out of Vic, NSW and Qld. Vic had the lowest price rises out of the three.

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Depending on your area. SP Ausnet is one of four in Melbourne anyway.

But there was an article were out of Vic, NSW and Qld. Vic had the lowest price rises out of the three.

So 50% in three years is lowest increase is it? What a joke!

[TheSneakiness]

Currently pay 20 cents kwh peak and 11 cents kwh off peak.

Works out for us (last bill anyway) of $140 for the quarter.

Hate to know what it is this quarter (NBN switched on and requires mains power 24/7)

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Currently pay 20 cents kwh peak and 11 cents kwh off peak.

Works out for us (last bill anyway) of $140 for the quarter.

Hate to know what it is this quarter (NBN switched on and requires mains power 24/7)

You've got very cheap rates mate!

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Currently pay 20 cents kwh peak and 11 cents kwh off peak.

Works out for us (last bill anyway) of $140 for the quarter.

Hate to know what it is this quarter (NBN switched on and requires mains power 24/7)

Why are your rates so cheap then?

[MarkAW]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

What/where are your sources for your claims?

I've been employed by Sydney County Council to Ausgrid since Jan 1976

[MarkAW]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Currently pay 20 cents kwh peak and 11 cents kwh off peak.

Works out for us (last bill anyway) of $140 for the quarter.

Hate to know what it is this quarter (NBN switched on and requires mains power 24/7)

What about the transmission charge?
These days its almost a dollar per day or $90 per quarter.

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Only if she applied for the rebate. Otherwise, how are they to know you've got a tank collecting rain.

Knowing that water company? They'd notice a distinct drop in water usage and investigate.

[glimmerman]

Unfortunately the government regardless of who you elect is a bunch of chimps and whatever they throw poo at gets screwed over

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

You do realise that you've paid for the so-called free roof insulation batts many times over in higher taxes and fees right?

I also pay much less tax because I get the first 18000 bucks tax free now.

So you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Oh and my electricity consumption has halved in the past 18 months, has my power bill gone down... nope. Quite the opposite actually and I've had some words with the power company on several occasions about this.

There's always an explanation...

You say you have halved your consumption?...

I am sure everyone in this thread would love to know your secret, champ?

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Bowser22

This is very true. A lot of large companies in Vic have agreements with the SEC for discounted power rates (I believe that Alcoa's pays around 14c per MW/h for Portland and maybe a tad less for Pt.Henry (they have their own power station for it)).

I've highlighted that bit of your post in case people missed it.

Yes that's 14c per MEGAWATT/HOUR that Alcoa pay.


Anyone interested in a carbon tax for big polluters after hearing that?

[MarkAW]

Originally Posted by zilo

I've highlighted that bit of your post in case people missed it.

Yes that's 14c per MEGAWATT/HOUR that Alcoa pay.

I don't agree with paying 14c/kWH but this is what happens when you have an industrial site that consumes more electricity than a medium sized city. They (Alcoa) dictates the price to the supplier and in this case they are tapping the power at the transmission level - 132kV. Alcoa will have their own distribution transformers and switchgear which again cuts the costs of supply.
Energy Suppliers will fall over each other to get contracts like Alcoa and if that means crapping on the little people to subsidize the Alcoa contract then who cares about the little people. Sorry folks but that is how a free market operates with energy.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by zilo

I also pay much less tax because I get the first 18000 bucks tax free now.

So you are wrong.



There's always an explanation...

You say you have halved your consumption?...

I am sure everyone in this thread would love to know your secret, champ?

No secret, mate. LED light globes, getting rid of the electric hot water (replaced with gas), chucking out the second fridge in the garage, getting rid of the dishwasher (never cleaned the dishes properly) and the TV's.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

I don't agree with paying 14c/kWH but this is what happens when you have an industrial site that consumes more electricity than a medium sized city. They (Alcoa) dictates the price to the supplier and in this case they are tapping the power at the transmission level - 132kV. Alcoa will have their own distribution transformers and switchgear which again cuts the costs of supply.
Energy Suppliers will fall over each other to get contracts like Alcoa and if that means crapping on the little people to subsidize the Alcoa contract then who cares about the little people. Sorry folks but that is how a free market operates with energy.

I'm sorry...you didn't read my post correctly.

I said to note Alcoa pay 14c per MEGAWATT not 14c per KILOWATT...

Does that change your perception a thousand fold?

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

No secret, mate. LED light globes, getting rid of the electric hot water (replaced with gas), chucking out the second fridge in the garage, getting rid of the dishwasher (never cleaned the dishes properly) and the TV's.

Okay...as I said there's always an explanation to sensational claims.

Your hot water accounted for 50% of electricity consumption, as it does in most households with electric hot water.

You haven't really reduced anything, you now have a gas bill as well...

As for your dispute with the power company...well...your hot water was at an off peak discount rate, so your bill would have a minor drop to say the least.

You've just wasted your money on replacing a cheap hot water system with a full priced gas unit.
There is no such thing as off peak gas hot water......