Given that the lowest income households already spend 7 per cent of their disposable incomes on energy, according to the Australian Council of Social Service, and energy takes just 2.6 per cent of the budget of those on high incomes, the extra cost added to electricity bills, will fall most heavily on those with limited incomes, such as pensioners

The going rate of $40 a megawatt hour means the total income per megawatt for wind farms is already three to five times that of conventional power, and unless the government changes the scheme that return is only going to get better. In an act of rent-seeking genius, the renewable lobby managed to persuade the Rudd government to set the 2020 target as a quantity — 41 terawatt hours — rather than 20 per cent of overall power as originally proposed. Since the target was set, the energy generation forecast for 2020 has fallen substantially, meaning the locked-in renewable target is now more like 28 per cent.

That will send the price for renewable certificates up beyond $100. It’s a mouth-watering prospect for the merchant bankers and venture capitalists who were smart enough to jump on board, and brilliant news for Mercedes dealerships on the lower north shore, but of little or any benefit to the planet.

As the electricity prices have risen faster due to the RET than even the odious carbon tax, the anticipated huge spike in power costs needs to be restrained by bringing the RET target back to the intended 20%.

Shadow Minister, you have no need to worry about electricity prices now surely?
Tony says once he gets rid of the carbon tax, our electricity bills will fall, and he never lies....

Not if they bring in the ETS. Businesses will have to buy carbon credits if they use energy. So who does not use electricity or transport.So they will have to pass the cost onto the consumer.

This money then goes into the share market to make the banks Al Gore and Clive Palmer richer.

SOL,

I am not sure if looking stupid was your intention, or whether the left whingers think it is cool to make inane quips.

The huge increases in electricity prices was due to three factors in descending order:
1 Network reliability upgrades
2 RET (especially since Rudd supercharged it)
3 Carbon tax.

The coalition has already started negotiation with the networks to moderate their upgrades and thus their charges, has already got rid of the carbon tax, and is now reviewing the changes to the RET that Rudd introduced that increased the renewable component by about 40%.

So considering that with the costs from all 3 factors projected to increase rapidly under Labor, they will slow dramatically or reverse in the case of the carbon tax.

Shadow Minister, you will have to excuse my cynicism, but do you really expect to see electricity prices go down for ANY reason?

I wasn't happy with the carbon tax either, but I have yet to see anything go down in price since it has supposedly 'gone'.
I hope I am wrong...

SOL,

In the short term yes. The network costs are locked in for this year and so the carbon tax can come off now.

In the medium term the network gold plating is still continuing, I recently visited a new $300m Ausgrid sub whose main purpose was to improve reliability. The RET is forcing networks to buy more of the hideously expensive wind and solar power at >10x the cost of normal generation, so until these issues are addressed, electricity will continue to rise in cost rapidly.

The consequences of failing to act are illustrated here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/lets-copy-california-and-have-less-jobs-less-money-less-energy-feel-that-green-glory/

That's right Arjay, as any impost on business has to be passed on, usually plus some.

However, I still believe that if you wish to cut emissions, the cheapest and most effective way of doing this, while depriving the profit makers of their slice of the pie, would be to charge a direct tax to the consumer, because, the first reaction of that consume, in the majority of cases, would be to cut down, or at least monitor their usage with a view towards cutting down.

The result would be the same, less generation, meaning less emissions but, the tax would go no further and no greedy trader could get their hands on the money/certificates.

While it may seem like a cruel hit to the consumer, it would be effective in a lot of cases.

For instance, if we paid say a 10 cents per litre tax on fuel, consumers would be more likely to better plan the use of their vehicles and not take them out on weekends if at all possible.

Or, if there was a tax on electricity, then most users would be more careful about how many lights they have on at any one time. I can remember one time when my kids were little, where I turned off a total of 19 lights one night. I'd hate to think what my bill would be today!
Perhaps governments could even reward consumers with a rebated portion of their tax if they reach a Pre determined goal.

Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 2 August 2014 2:02:38 PM

Just look at what happened to water prices, firstly we were encouraged to conserve water, so water usage fell.

The water authority/regulator, lost revenue, so the price of water went up. In the end the consumer was paying more money for water, but using less.

This also applies to the use of energy, as consumer usage falls, the price per unit increases in order to keep profitability for companies and shareholders.