NSW is just the tip for this on again off again industry.
In March,confronted by the very dead body of the NSW ALP Barry OFarrell won an all time historic Victory.
He then tried to make retrospective legislation to remove subsidy's for power produced by solar panels.
Largely those panels,sometimes near energy farms, are the property of those who installed him in office.
Three times the rate charged for power is to be returned for power produced this way.
Joe and Jean average are to pay for this with increased power costs.
While never wanting retrospective legislation,that breaks election promises,Barry has backed down,should he have done so.
Solar power if we cut cost to install but pay only realistic amounts for power produced may just replace two power stations.
But right now,some are proffiteering from fellow users.

Belly the only details I know are what I've heard on the radio but as I understand it there was a contractural agreement which he'd propose breaking.

Possibly a silly contract driven by ideology rather than real worth.

I don't think it's a good habit for governments to breach contracts (even if the have the tools to do so). If the government had a contract it should be honored within the terms of that contract and more reasonable terms set up when a legitimate opportunity arives.

As traditionally happens for non-labor governments, they spend the first term (or two) in office cleaning up the financial mess left behind by labor. This will be just one of many problems left behind to deal with.

R0bert

That backflip is good news for me- thankyou Barry for finally seeing the light (even though it was only because fellow party members insisted).
As far as I'm concerned, getting a proper Solar rebate (Aside from being allowed to generate your own power directly) are the ONLY ways to justify that scammy "Carbon Tax".

With these options we have a clear alternative to convert to AWAY from these so-called very-bad-fuel-sources and into something green.

without these, then it becomes too obvious that the carbon tax is nothing more than an excuse to rip off consumers for what they do use.
And it seems there was a lot of grief among the government of too many people using Solar panels, as if that was a bad thing and NOT what the carbon tax was supposed to be about.

i would like to know if any who got the subsidised solar sells on their roofs have reduced consumption...[or wether they cheaper power[for them]..has actualy increased their abuse..

daytime solar is useless at night..so these leches are sukking doubly ooff the basic ignorant power user..[paying for* their excess...who helped them buy the cells..then supply them with nighttime power and infastructure so they got power at night]

these leeches get 3 times normal rate
how blatent they are...[how affective their guiltfree lobby]
instaling tax upon those who are doing the right thing..and giving imput subasidy..3 times real worth]..

its insane

but guilt makes their minds numb

i would suggest that those..in on the scam
pay the one set rate...
*fixed price..for all their power

[not take advantage of differential rates for input or output]
that sees a dollar value
in bias of those paying for input..against what they putout]

my buill comes in peak and off peak
anything different..is a scam

to wit things like ambulance levies or input rates

its noticable that one cannot make a contract
without the others informed concent..or without having the others power of attourney

as the housing industry is finding out contracts cant hold their binding power..beyond those who signed a contract

thus barry you need to think smarter
who holds what contract.,.with whom?

then get those
who havnt got a valid..con-tract
pay for whjat they uswe and when..PLUS line maintance/acces fees

or bring in
a unit usage wastage/rate
for the big users..ab/users
who run the bigger scams

odious* debt is a crime

I see that the money will have to be made up by increasing electricity prices again.

I feel the dead hand of Labor NSW in my wallet.

The 60 cent gross scheme was flawed from the start.
I could see it immediately that it was a trap waiting to be sprung.
It was such a good deal that everyone should have taken it up.
We could have sent the state broke in the first month if the cells
could have been installed fast enough.

I have read of unfair contracts being set aside by the courts, but
that might not have worked because the writer and seller of the
contracts is the party that wanted to rewrite them.
New contracts should be for the current supply charge plus a return on
capital invested but not for gross but net supplied into the grid.
People would then install enough cells to give them a small income
and free electricity for themselves.
This would save the grid supplying a lot of daytime electricity.
With a push to gas generation, they could ramp up and down to match easily.

If I remember correctly the government was warned what would happen
if they went ahead with 60 cent gross. But as usual the pollies know
best and the common mug wouldn't have a clue.

Another problem is that they are designing these energy systems for
the wrong problem. We need to put our efforts in replaceable energy
for liquid fuels. We urgently need a study into whether the amount
of natural gas we have could replace oil fuels for say the next 30 yrs.
If NatGas is to be used for transport, a mass conversion of cars and
trucks could mean the forever supply could be very short term.
The companies who are selling natural gas tell us we have enough
gas to last for nearly forever. However other studies suggest that
is pie in the sky stuff. It turns out that the ERoEI just cannot
support the claims being made.