Newman drops Feed-in-Tariff

The Greens are going to hate this. Newman has changed the generous incentives for installing solar panels and returning power to the electricity grid.

New installations will receive a feed-back tariff of 8c down from 44c a kW/h. I’ve been warning all and sundry that this had to happen as it was simply unsustainable both economically and socially. Somebody has to pay the .44c and it falls on those who can’t afford to fill their roofs with solar panels – the poor and the battling Mum and Dad pensioners. Power companies have to balance their books and buying for .44c and selling for .22 ain’t going to cut it.

However, all is not lost;

Mr McArdle said households that lodged an Inverter Energy System connection application by midnight on July 9 would still be eligible for the 44 cents per kW/h tariff.

Feed in Tariffs involve a subsidy, incurring costs that need to be recovered from higher electricity prices or the state budget. The NSW government, in their plan to rid the taxpayer of ALP/Earthian Green economic nightmare, tasked IPART with sorting out the problem and making recommendations to the government, They were :

…. asked IPART to recommend a ‘fair and reasonable’ value for a feed-in tariff for customers
who export electricity to the grid but are not eligible for the Solar Bonus Scheme, and
a mechanism to implement this value in NSW. However, it stipulated that our recommendations:
 should not result in an increase in electricity prices in NSW, and
 should not require funding from the NSW Government budget.

In other words, any future feed-in tariff for these customers must be subsidy-free.

That is obviously where Newman is coming from as his new installation tariff of .8c a kW/h is similar to the IPART recommendation of 5.2 to 10.3 c/kWh. You can download the IPART report here

For all the non-thinkers and Green Earthians railing at Newman for “the broken promise” they need to realize a couple of hard truths.

1. You should be yelling at Bligh, not Newman. She has left the state in such a parlous situation that hard decisions have to be made. By the 2015/16 financial year, almost 10 per cent, or $5.3 billion, of state revenue will be spent paying interest on Queensland’s $92 billion debt. The selfish pricks should realize that there are no free dinners. Someone always has to pay and it should be the individual, not the poor folk or the subsidized taxpayer.

2. The Earthian Greens Renewable Energy Program and Carbon Tax are already going to cost us dearly and are a part of the increasing utility bill. As ever is the case, any plan from these guys doesn’t have a “Law of unintended consequences” factored in – It is uncontrolled, millions doled out to Earthian Green church members without any guarantee of results other that ‘I feel good”

Newman is obliged to try and balance the books and with the state debt sitting at $80b and rising something has to be done. All the ALP/Green plans never take costs into calculations – it is all just money to Giai – she deserves it more than us humans. But hey, Hippy, the rent always falls due.

He is not actually cancelling Feed in Tariffs. If you have a current system, or have lodged your application by July 9 then you get .44c. It’s just new installations that will receive tariffs that don’t cost the poor folk or the state budget money.

I have contracted to have solar put on my roof, not because I feel a need to save the planet, but simply because all the ALP/Green Earthian wacky plans are raising the cost of services for no benefit. I don’t want some poor bastard to subsidise my power bills and I don’t want it lumbered on an already financially troubled state.

2 Responses to Newman drops Feed-in-Tariff

  1. Russell says:

    As I drove through the minor streets of Penrith and Kingswood, in Sydney, I noted the solar systems sprouting on the rooves of houses. Rarely did these additions improve the visual appeal of the houses. In some cases, occupants seemed so smitten with the anticipated profits to be made that they squeezed as many panels onto their rooves as possible. It appeared obvious to me that they ignored the potential damage to the structural integrity of their houses and the reduced retail value of their dwellings. The orientation of many of the houses was such that the solar units had to be installed at angles to the sun that would reduce the efficiency of the units considerably with a corresponding reduction of the financial return of the units should they be wishing to feed “surplus” energy into the power grid.

    While there were some two bedroom, asbestos sheeted houses that sprouted the devices, in general, the appearance was that the more substantial or more well-maintained houses were the ones that were having solar panels installed. It seemed reasonable to assume that these homes were occupied by the more well-off in our community, those people with access to capital or finance for the initial outlay for the installation, leaving the in-between houses as being occupied by the less fortunate in our community, pensioners, single-income families, single parent families, renters, etc.

    It further seemed reasonable, to me, to assume that the outcome is that the poorer in our community are having to subsidise the more well-off through paying the higher cost of electricity. Higher because the cost of the subsidies paid to owners of solar electricity systems to install systems and feed power back into the system, the costs for the upgrade of the power grid, the penalties imposed by the “carbon’ tax, can only be recouped through the payments charged to those unfortunate enough to have to draw power from the grid.

    • Bob says:

      Definitely not thought out by Robin Hood…..but then not too many Greens live in fibro cement homes or homes of 12 squares or less, or try to survive on pensions or the dole and benefits. It would appear that Labor have done a back flip in the “working class man”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Facebook