Nuclear energy is dismissed as too expensive, yet I find the claim extraordinary given that the battery cost alone for renewables is multiples the cost of powering Australia with nuclear energy. And remember how wonderful pumped hydro was going to be? The renewable energy spivs and zealots are going to throw Australia off a cliff if they are allowed to pursue the fantasy for much longer.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/worlds-biggest-standalone-grid-says-pumped-hydro-too-hard-all-in-with-battery-storage/

The link I gave earlier tells us in the Executive
Summary that power bills can be fairer and more
affordable if Australia's governments agreed to
tackle the super normal excessive network profits.

That change can only happen with government action.

It's pointed out that substantial new regulated network
investment is needed to allow for the replacement of
the high emissions power stations with renewable energy
and storage. However, excessive network profits are
raising consumer prices and impeding this transformation.

Things won't change unless the government steps in.

Perhaps WTF should have explained what the "permitted “normal” profits" are, if he knows. In fact they don't exist. there are regulated profit margins but the system is built to allow, indeed encourage, businesses to exceed those regulated profits by making additional cost savings.

All of this is covered in the Guardian article WTF got his information from. I can't imagine why he didn't mention it.

"“The ability of business to outperform the regulated rate of return is the incentive-based framework working as intended under the legislation,” an AER spokesperson said. “The outperformance is not an indicator of “supernormal profits”, nor having a material impact on customer bills.

“The incentive schemes in place under the regulatory framework reward networks for improving productivity and service performance beyond benchmarks,” the spokesperson said. “This ultimately provides benefits to customers in the form of lower prices and superior service levels.”

Repeat....“This ultimately provides benefits to customers in the form of lower prices and superior service levels.”

I guess the usual suspects are panicking that Albanese's promise to lower electricity prices is now unattainable and are scrounging around to find excuses.

Craig Emerson writing in the Australian Financial
Review tells us that :

"There's no pathway to affordable clean energy that
doesn't require government support. "

And according to The Guardian:

Industry and states have welcomed Albanese government's
plan to jump start the stalled renewables investment scheme
designed to attract financial investment in new wind and
solar farms.

There's more at the following:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/23/albanese-government-renewable-energy-investment-scheme

The government has turned its energy to this head-turning
task.

WTF?

"Normal profits" are what Australian Energy Regulator (AER) considers necessary to compensate network shareholders for their investment.

Their definition not mine.

I am quoting the IEFF because the IEFF states that: "The AER does not appear to be addressing this issue despite significant evidence that network businesses are receiving much higher-than-expected returns on equity."

So this is of interest to consumers - price increases and the Government organisation tasked with overseeing this not appearing to address the issue.

This information comes from the IEFF website.
"Super profits reach $11bn as monopoly power networks exploit system failures."
http://ieefa.org/articles/super-profits-reach-11bn-monopoly-power-networks-exploit-system-failures.

So we have monopolies and "The AER’s approach means large wealth transfers from power consumers to network shareholders are very likely to continue for the foreseeable future."

mhaze seems to have a strange approach to Laissez-faire  capitalism.

One day saying that “…... allow, indeed encourage, businesses to exceed those regulated profits".

And yet on another saying “ to meet the various ambitions for industry in the country, perhaps we need to cut back on the ambitions.”

WTF gives us a definition of "normal profits". He originally talked of "permitted normal profits". I wonder why he left 'permitted' out? Perhaps because they are 'permitted'. Profits above normal profits aren't just permitted, they are encouraged.

I've noticed WTF has a habit of selectively truncating quotes to colour a point.

Hilariously WTF writes" mhaze seems to have a strange approach to Laissez-faire capitalism."

Laissez-faire capitalism? Struth!. The whole energy market is as far removed from laissez-faire capitalism as its possible to be. The whole notion of regulated normal profits is as far removed from laissez-faire capitalism as its possible to be. Massive and utterly market distorting subsidies are as far removed from laissez-faire capitalism as its possible to be.