A good article, which shows that Gillard is all about political spin on this one too.

I want to know where this gold plating is, apart from the cities of course. There are something like 8.5 million power poles, 70% of which are over 35 years old. At the moment many of those are being propped up with a bit of extra steel support, as we've had so many fires start from old poles, here in WA. Where I live, we still have a power blackout about once a month, for a few hours at a time.

So no gold plating, more like a network that urgently needed updating, which they are now finally starting to address.

That was critical. Subsidies paid to solar panel owners and the carbon tax, both adding huge amounts to electricity bills, had nothing to do with being critical. Add the extra cost of green energy, as is highlighted in the article, and yes, power charges have increased quite a bit, even in WA, where the Govt owns the system.

The PM is correct in finally seeing that 'gold plating' of networks is happening. The components of a NSW power bill are:

Networks 49.7%
Retail 10.4%
Energy Cost 25.6%
RET scheme 6.7%
Carbon tax 7.6%

Cost of cleaning up energy is 14.3% of the bill compared to network costs of 49.7%.
How do you get 29%? CEFC and ARENA are covered by the carbon price. Perhaps you are 'creatively' double counting them?

Yes the carbon price and RET are supposed to make electricity more expensive (currently 14.3% more expensive for retail customers). They are already working and have increased renewable generation (RE) from about 5% to 9% of total generation, brought RE costs down and effectively stopped any new dirty coal generation. The carbon price will be much more effective when the exempted resource corporations are actually made to pay it.

The real point that the PM has realized is that that spending huge amounts on centralized networks to provide peak power for air conditioners for a several days of the year is the WRONG way to go. The PM was right to point this out. A dispersed grid with more dispersed renewable generation and storage is what is needed for the future.

Anthony the obfustation you and your front organization Climate Sceptics are disseminating is becoming widely known for the fraud it is. Similar tactics were used against tobacco regulation, cleaning up acid rain, nuclear non-proliferation; the list goes on, and many of the same people were involved. Big polluting industries (read fossil fuel organizations)fund this nonsense to try and defend their profits for just a few more years. Oreske et al's 'Merchants of Doubt' documents all of this.

PS Viva the recent court decision for plain packaging of cigarettes! But we should never forget that the tobacco industry staved this off for 30 years with their orchestrated campaign of lies. We must not let the fossil fuel industry do the same with carbon regulation.

All states see advantages of higher power prices, and coincidently at the same time. 70% surge in power prices without detail. I say this is a combination of falling power consumption, govt; dividends, and carbon tax.
An inquiry into these costings are needed, to see who gets what.

Roses1 says this;

"Networks 49.7%
Retail 10.4%
Energy Cost 25.6%
RET scheme 6.7%
Carbon tax 7.6%

Cost of cleaning up energy is 14.3% of the bill compared to network costs of 49.7%."

A link to the source is necessary to establish that these figures haven't been made up because they contradict the Federal government's figures.

The combined ho hum is deafening.

There is a consensus all right, just it's not about Global warming.

No, it is a consensus that her lips are moving again, so she must be lying.

Unlike the pretend global warming consensus, this one is fully factual. Yes she's lying again, or is that still.

You do have to feel a little sorry for those still rusted on Laborites. There is so much empty rust, where so many have now fallen off, there must be no where for them to get a grip.

When will they learn? The only way to make Gillard more popular is to lock her in a camera proof, sound proof room, for a few years. It will only be after some years with out ever hearing or seeing her, that some will start to forget just how thoroughly bad she is.

cohenite/roses1

Actually roses1's figures are somewhere close to reality.. there is a breakup in an IPART (NSW pricing tribunal) report I saw.. It is generally acknowledged that most of the increase in power prices is due to the changes in the networks and, as the author notes, a part of that is due to need to meet new network standards.

However, where Roses1 errs is in saying its the cost of cleaning up the power supply.. it isn't.. Both the carbon tax and the existing RET have very little effect on the system. However, at present wind accounts for about 3 per cent of the power generated but if demand remains subdued as it has, and the government does not change its target (set as an absolute amount of about 45 Twhrs from memory)then RET costs could be eight times what they are now by 2020.