I have just received a media release from Energy Minister Peter Batchelor stating that the Brumby Labor Government’s feed-in tariff legislation passed by the Victorian Parliament on 25 June 2009.
The final structure of the Victorian feed-in tariff includes:
60 cents credit per kilowatt hour for energy fed back into the grid within that year. This is about four times the current cost of electricity in Victoria.
The tariff is paid to residences, community organisations and small businesses with energy consumption less than 100 MWh a year
An array size limit of 5kW applies
This outcome is a significant improvement on the feed-in tariff initially proposed by the government. Amendments introduced in the Upper House which improved the scheme include:
extending participation to community organisations and small businesses with energy consumption less than 100 MWh a year
increasing the array size limit from 2kW to 5kW
Two electricity retailers have also provided letters which state they will provide cash or rollover credits for energy produced, rather than these credits "expiring" as was initially proposed.
The additional amendment put by the Greens for the tariff to be paid on the gross output (rather than the net output) was not accepted.
The tariff does not apply to large scale solar or wind either, so there is potential to further improve this legislation in the future.
On balance, this is a significant improvement over the legislation initially proposed. The government states that the amendments were made "in response to input from responsible environment groups" which demonstrates that the efforts made to contact politicians and build community support for a good feed-in tariff were successful.
Well done ATA, Environment Victoria, Climate Action Groups and everybody who spent time and considerable effort on this campaign.
I find it very disappointing that the Energy Minister Peter Batchelor is refusing to represent the best interests of the Victorian public by threatening to kill the solar feed-in tariff in parliament.
Peter Batchelor has proposed a crippled feed-in tariff that favours the big end of town. Some energy companies have even been promoting his proposed net feed in tariff several months before it has even been legislated.
The net tariff proposed by Peter Batchelor will not encourage the uptake of solar power by households and community groups.
The Greens have put amendments to provide a gross tariff that has been proven to be effective in other countries and is in line with those in the ACT and Western Australia.
Peter Batchelor cannot even get his sums right. After claiming a real feed-in tariff would cost $100 per household per year, he now claims it will cost $40. He apparently has not bothered to read his own consultant's report that found it would cost about $8 per year. In addition, low-income households can easily be protected from increased prices by granting them a concession.
A simple gross feed-in tariff should have been a easy and effective way for the Labor Government to provide real incentives for households and community groups to increase renewable energy generation and transition off coal-fired power.
Unfortunately, the Labor party is playing politics and looking after vested industry interests rather than listening to the community and taking real action to address climate change.
If the Labor party kills the solar feed-in tariff, you will kill the only real action on climate change you have on the table. I implore you to see sense and support an effective gross feed-in tariff.
To: Richard Dalla-Riva, MLC Eastern Metropolitan Region.
Dear Richard
I am writing you as a resident with Eastern Metropolitan Region to express my concerns about the proposed Feed-in Tariff legislation under consideration in the Victorian Parliament.
The proposed Feed-in Tariff (FIT) structure does not provide sufficient incentives for people, schools and business to install solar power (due to net metering and the 3.2kW array size cap)
This will compromise creating a vibrant jobs-rich solar sector - as they have in Germany where they have a good FIT.
Consumers who export electricity will only be paid "credits", not cash. This effectively removes incentives for energy efficiency appliances. It will also encourage people to "use their credit" by consuming more electricity, since it will not be redeemable as cash.
The Tariff should be amended to a gross tariff with a 10kW cap, as they have legislated for in WA and ACT.
A gross feed-in tariff (as the same for a ‘net’ feed-in tariff) will result in a small increase in household electricity bills – approximately $6-12 per year. Concession card holders should be exempted from this extra cost.
There is wide community support for an effective Feed-in Tariff.
Can you please represent my views on this to the Parliament and within your party?
This post was published as a letter to the editor in The Age on 13 March 2009.
Peter Batchelor's recent announcement that the Victorian government will be seeking proposals for a solar power station sounds promising, but this potential project is not fully funded yet.
At the same time, Peter Batchelor announced that Victoria's proposed Feed-in Tariff legislation has a net tariff structure with a 3.2kW array size cap.
The stated intention for the Feed-in Tariff is to provide incentives for the installation of domestic solar systems. However, the proposed tariff structure greatly reduces the financial incentives to households, which conflicts with its primary purpose. Why cap something you are trying to encourage?
The government has not provided a valid explanation for their proposed tariff structure. It is at odds with the proven effective gross metered tariffs that Western Australia and the ACT have just implemented, similar to Germany's which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs in their solar sector.
The Brumby government should stop playing politics and get serious about solar and creating jobs for a clean green energy future.
The following email was sent to Premier John Brumby and the Victorian Cabinet on 6/2/09.
Dear Premier Brumby,
I have now written to Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's office on five separate occasions concerning the Feed-intariff legislation your government has stated it will introduce.
As yet, none of the questions (listed below) that I have asked concerning this tariff have been satisfactorily answered by Minister Batchelor or his staff, which I find very disappointing and quite unacceptable.
1. When will your feed-intariff legislation be introduced? 2. When can a copy of it be sent to me? 3. What is the purpose of the 2kW array size cap? 4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere? 5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret? 6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?
7. Why is the Brumby government proceeding with a feedintariff for Victoria that will be completely ineffective and conflicting with proposed national legislation?
8. What is the Brumby government's target for domestic solar panel installation (in MW) for 2009 and 2010?
I note that Professor Ross Garnaut stated in his final report in 2008 that a gross feedintariff was the best one to adopt, as has been introduced in the ACT feed-intariff legislation where they pay on gross metering with a generous 10kW cap on array size. Several explanations on the government website at http://dpi.vic.gov.au/energy/feedintariff are not consistent or accurate, some of which I address below.
Problems with 2kW cap on array size.
DPI have stated that: "Data available from the Commonwealth Solar Homes and Communities Plan indicates that the average size of residential PV systems is 1.5 kilowatts and over 90% of currently installed PV systems are at or below 2 kilowatts. For this reason, the 2 kilowatt capacity threshold was deemed appropriate for the premium fee-intariff scheme."
Your stated purpose for the feed-intariff is to increase the residential uptake of PV systems. Putting an artificial cap on array size, based on the average systems installed to date, simply limits the financial incentives for households to install systems over 2kW for no good reason. It is therefore in direct conflict with your stated purpose. Your basis for the proposed 2kW cap on array size is simply not valid.
Encouraging energy efficiency Your government states that encouraging energy efficiency is another objective of the feed-intariff. This is simply not relevant. The feed-intariff is a policy measure for encouraging the uptake of solar panels, not driving energy efficiency. I urge you to consider effective measures for encouraging energy efficiency such as:
Introducing energy efficiency labelling standards for all consumer electrical goods
Introducing energy efficiency standards as part of building standards
Consider raising the price of electricity so that consumers will be encouraged so use less
The cost to households is much lower than you claim
I understand that a cabinet committee submission from the Department of Sustainability and Environment stated that the so-called "gross feed-in" solar subsidy scheme would have cost households just $18 a year, or 35 cents a week, increasing electricity bills by just 2 per cent. This is significantly less than your previously claim, based in information not released from Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's office, that claimed the cost at $100 a year for households. This claim now appears to be in error. More solar panels could avoid or reduce recent power outages. The very hot weather across Victoria last week, combined with many households using energy hungry air conditioners during the day (up to or great than 8kW) resulted in electricity supply falling below demand. Photovoltaic panels, if enough are installed, would generate power for the grid precisely when on hot sunny days when it is needed most and power is most expensive. Additional generation by solar panels may have avoided these supply problems and kept the grid, and Melbourne's train network, operating properly during the heatwave conditions.
Solar panels reduce emissions and therefore address climate change. All power generated from PVs should be paid a gross tariff as they produce power that would otherwise be sourced from the coal-fired electricity, thereby reducing carbon emissions, This is an essential measure for tackling climate change, which is now an urgent concern following the recent extremely hot weather resulting in some deaths and huge disruption to Victoria's economy. The Feedintariff should also provide financial incentive for large scale solar power energy producers to encourage investment in large scale solar plants too.
I strongly urge you to implement a proven effective gross feedintariff with no cap on array size as this would greatly boost installation of solar panels and green jobs, both of which will benefit Victoria.
Peter Campbell
Previous correspondence
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-inTariff Date: 5/10/2008 11:59 PM Subject: Re: Solar Feed-inTariff Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:58:48 +1000 Subject: Re: Solar Feed-inTariff Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:38:12 +1000 Subject: Re: Solar Feed-inTariff Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 22:29:08 +1000 Subject: LETTER: Please introduce a feedintariff Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:26:37 +1100
I have received a letter from the Department of Primary Industries (your ref: ME003562) in response to my three recent queries to you regarding the Brumby Government's proposed feed-in tariff legislation. Unfortunately, the letter does not answer any of the queries I have raised with you. It provides me with a summary of the proposed legislation and a "fact sheet" on it. I was not requesting further general information on this ill-considered legislation, my queries relate to specific issues concerning it, none of which have been addressed in the letter I received.
To reiterate, my previous questions, to which I still request answers from you, are listed below in bold.
1. When will your feed-in tariff legislation be introduced? 2. When can a copy of it be sent to me? 3. What is the purpose of the 2kW array size cap? 4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere? 5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret? 6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?
My further questions to you are numbered in the text below:
I also note that the national RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) AMENDMENT (FEED-IN-TARIFF) BILL 2008 being considered by the Australian Senate is framed around a gross metered tariff, in accordance with world best practice.
I also note that the Labor ACT feed-in tariff legislation pays on gross metering (the full production amount) and has a generous 10kW cap on array sizE.
7. Why is the Brumby government proceeding with a feed in tariff for Victoria that will be completely ineffective and conflicting with the proposed national legislation?
8. What is the Brumby government's target for domestic solar panel installation (in MW) for 2009 and 2010?
If your proposed feed-in tariff legislation proceeds it will simply not deliver any of the benefits you claim. The 2kW cap on array size means that residences will not be able to install a big enough array (e.g. 3 to 4 kW) to generate a significant net output so nobody will actually be paid the premium rate. In addition, all power generated should be paid the gross tariff as it is reducing the power that would otherwise be sourced from the coal-fired electricity on the grid.
It is not clear to me how you have constructed such abrogated legislation, hence my questions seeking clarification. If this legislation proceeds in its current form, it will soon be regarded as an enduring bad legacy of your government, and a missed opportunity for the people of Victoria.
By contrast, and gross feed in tariff with say a 10kW cap on array size would greatly boost installation of solar panels and green jobs associated with this, both of which will greatly benefit Victoria.
I am seeking an urgent response from you to my eight questions.
Peter Campbell http://greenlivingpedia.org 0409 417 504
Below is the third letter I have sent to Peter Batchelor; so far he has not bothered to answer my first two. I don't think he will bother to answer this one either. So much for accountable government "for the people".
I have also sent copies to all members of John Brumby's Cabinet, as they participated in the decision to implement a Clayton's feed-in tariff in Victoria.
Dear Minister Batchelor,
I am disappointed to have still received no response from your office to my suggestions and questions regarding the government's proposed feed-in tariff legislation (included below).
It should now be apparent to you and the rest of Cabinet that your proposed legislation has had a very detrimental effect on the uptake of solar panels and therefore comprised Victoria's opportunity to become a leader in the installation and even manufacturing of solar panels. This in turn compromises Victoria's ability to meet both State VRET and Federal MRET requirements.
The 100K household income means test on the solar rebate introduced by Peter Garrett has further exacerbated this situation, to the point where solar installations have plummeted when the very opposite should be occurring.
Your stated concerns about impacts on low income households can be addressed by providing them with an appropriate concession.
Also please note that net metering in fact favours high income households where nobody is home consuming power during the day (when a net output can be generated) and actually discriminates against working families where a parent is at home with children using appliances such as washing machines, lighting and cooking - which prevents them generating net output.
In the interests of transparent and accountable government, could you please answer the following questions?
1. When will your feed-in tariff legislation be introduced?
2. When can a copy of it be sent to me?
3. What is the purpose of the 2kw array size cap?
4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere?
5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret?
6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?
I couldn’t believe my ears when I saw and heard Garrett on the ABC TV news and 7:30 report tonight say in parliament today that he had to bring in the 100K household means test on solar panels because it was too successful.
Yes, that’s right. Too many people were installing too many clean green renewable energy panels. So they brought in the 100k means test to snuff this out.
Garrett’s metamorphosis is complete. He is now just another politician. The best he can offer on World Environment day is a voluntary (read ineffective) energy labelling scheme for TVs. This is totally lame.
If you would like to send an email to Peter Garrett about this you can use this form the ACF has provided on their website.
Rudd can’t stop subsidising the Australian car industry that continues to build petrol guzzling V6 and V8s and throws more money at them to build hybrids. Why not redirect existing subsidies to this? Freiburg in Germany has shown what can be really done to reduce the reliance on cars.
How many more coal fired power stations will be built under the Rudd government, when we need to decommission 1 per year to meet emission reduction targets?
It didn’t take long for Labor’s “green spots” to fall off after the election.
Here is a copy of the email I sent to Garrett on the means test for the solar subsidy:
============
Dear Mr Garrett
I'm very disappointed that the Government has announced new restrictions on the solar panel rebate program - at a time when Australia should be ramping up its efforts to tackle climate change.
The new $100,000 per annum household means test is going to stop thousands of Australian families from going solar, and put a big dent in our growing solar industry.
I'm calling on you to be our solar champion - and increase the means test to $250,000 per annum - the same level as the household energy and water efficiency 'green loans' program.
I also know the biggest decision your Government will make this year will be setting Australia's 2020 target for reducing our greenhouse pollution.
The target will set the scene for Australia's overall effort on climate change - and for our shift to solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy. That's why, in addition to increasing the means test for the solar rebate, I also urge you to commit to a strong greenhouse pollution reduction target of at least 30% by 2020, and ensure a cleaner, safer future for Australia.
Solar panel rebates are not middle income welfare. Solar electricity production is one of the important measures we need to take to address climate change. The $100,000 means test effectively knocks the rebate out for the vast majority of people who would have installed panels and claimed it. I personally know of five people in this situation.
Please increase the means test to $250,000 per annum.
I rang Peter Batchelor's office to discuss details and reasons for the structure of the Feed in Tariff being introduced in Victoria. I spoke at length to one his ministerial advisors. The concerns raised by the advisor and my reponse to them are listed below.
=================
Thanks for taking the time to speak with me last Friday about the feed in tariff legislation.
In answer to the following concerns you raised regarding gross metering, and your reasons for justifying the 2kW limit: 1. The government doesn't want to pay people for the energy they use
The government should pay a premium for every watt of renewable energy, both when used domestically and when exported to the grid. This is because the energy is zero emissions and directly replaces energy from coal-fired power stations. The energy is also very valuable as it is generated at peak times on hot days when the grid is nearing capacity to supply.
2. A gross metered feed in tariff without the 2kW cap will drive up electricity bills for low income households
Premier Brumby claimed on Stateline (Friday May 9, 2008) that the FIT "would have imposed a significant burden on low income households, with some estimates that this would add up to 10% to the cost of power bills". I understand from you that the economic model used to support this claim is now a Cabinet in Confidence document that cannot be released to the public.
Given that other economic analysis has estimated no more that 1% increase in power bills, I question the veracity of the report (or model) that the government claims has informed their decisions on structuring the FIT.
I also think is is quite inappropriate for such an important and non-sensitive piece of economic information to be subject to Cabinet secrecy. This is not transparent or accountable process or decision making.
In addition, specific measures, such as Government funded installation of a solar system, could be provided for low income households if they are genuinely disadvantaged by the feed in tariff. Other subsidies or grants to them are also possible. 3. The FIT doesn't encourage energy efficiency.
The feed in tariff is not a policy instrument for directly encouraging energy efficiency, and should not be regarded or measured as such. However, households with solar panels generally become more aware of their electricity consumption and production and are therefore more likely to investigate and adopt measures to improve the efficiency of their electricity usage.
A more appropriate way of encouraging energy efficiency - which is complementary to a gross-metered non-capped FIT is to mandate that homes produce an amount (say 15% or 20%) of the energy they consume. This would drive efficiency measures so that the energy production percentage can be achieved (e.g. by solar panels) with the minimum and most cost effective energy generating system.
The Government should also mandate energy efficiency labelling for all appliances immediately. 4. The VRET is a more important factor in encouraging renewable energy
While the Victorian Renewable Energy Target is good to have, I would argue that it should be higher (e.g. 20%). Also, it yields little benefit to household producers with solar panels, it mainly benefits energy companies and large scale producers. I addition, a FIT complements and supports the VRET. Treating them as alternatives is a false dichotomy - we can have both.
5. The 30 minute timeboxing for net metering reduces the impact of the 2kW cap
While this may result in some additional payments to producers I think this will be insignificant compared to what gross metering would yield. This is very complicated too - the vast majority of people simply don't understand this measure.
A 2kW system will supply about 60% of an average household's elecricity consumption, so there will be very little net exports to the grid from such systems. I can see no good reasons for the 2kW cap. In summary
It seems to me that the Victorian government has lost sight of the overall goal of reducing carbon emissions. Many more solar panels on Victorian and Australian roofs would directly reducing carbon emissions, and successful Feed in Tariff models in other countries have proven that this works. In Germany, this has resulted in power now produced from solar panels that is equivalent to two coal fired power stations - Germany now has 4,000 times more energy output from solar panels than Australia.
The Victorian Government's claim on the proposed Feed in Tariff will pay off solar panel systems in 10 years is inaccurate. More accurate financial modelling indicates that it will have negligible effect on reducing the payback period for panels.
Increased clean energy production for solar panels, along with investment in other forms of renewable energy such as wind power and large scale solar, will reduce and hopefully eliminate the need to build any more coal fired power stations which the entire community would have to pay for - and which would also impose significant financial burden on low income households.
I strongly urge the government to modify the tariff to a proven effective and equitable model , which is:
60 cents per kWh
paid for at least 15 years
paid on the entire output of a system via gross production metering
no caps on array size and/or outputs.
This tariff would encourage many more people to install panels, dramatically increase output of clean zero emissions energy, and contribute to a thriving and growing local solar installation industry in Victoria.
It would benefit all Victorians, and be a key local measure in tacking climate change.
What on earth is going on in the Victorian Cabinet?
After visiting the Bali convention on climate change and using their generous travel allowances to see how a good feed in tariff can promote emission reductions and jobs from solar power in countries like Germany, our Victorian Government has delivered a feed in tariff that is crippled and worthless.
It really is cynical greenwash, and follows the trend of them taking no real action to address climate change.
Who in the big end of town has guided them to such a poor outcome? They can't really be that stupid can they? Once again, politics delivers a very poor and non-transparent policy and legislation for the people, who expect so much more.
Read the letter below I sent to Cabinet for more details. And watch this video.
=================
Dear Mr Batchelor,
Thanks for your late advice about the introduction of the new Feed in Tariff in Victoria further to my correspondence with your office on this matter on 19/3/08.
Unfortunately, I believe that the Government has made serious mistakes in the structure of this tariff, which almost completely negate the positive effects a well structured tariff would have.
My concerns are:
1. The Feed in Tariff is only paid on net metering.
The total electricity generated by panels should be subject to the tariff, as all the clean electricity generated has zero emissions which directly substitutes for coal-fired power and therefore reduces emissions accordingly. In Germany and other locations where they pay the tariff on gross metering, there has been a dramatic rise in installation of solar power. Germany now has 400 times the solar output of Australia despite having about half our sunshine.
You have missed the opportunity to provide similar encouragement to a new economy and local industry (and jobs) based on increased installation of panels on available roof space.
2. The Feed in Tariff has a maximum ceiling of 2kW
This is nonsense. The more solar zero emissions power we generate as a nation the better. This is a critical measure for reducing our emissions to combat climate change. The 2kW array size limit for getting the Feed in Tariff is simply crippling the financial motivation for people to install solar panels, and crippling their payback if they choose to install a bigger array.
We currently have a 1.5kW array that has been running for 6 years and intend to expand it to 3kW. Your Feed In Tariff will provide us with no benefits.
Most five star standard households currently consume about 20 to 25kwH of electricity per day. A 1kW array produces about 5kwH per day, while a 2kW array produces about 10 kwH per day. Such systems will therefore export negligible net energy to the grid, particularly if a 2kW air conditioner is run on hot sunny days.
There is no rational reason to apply such a tariff ceiling; it should be removed. 3. No certainty for investment is provided
The complexities and restrictions of your feed in tariff resulting from net metering combined with the 2kW ceiling provide no certainty or guarantee for investment in a solar array, unlike gross metering with no ceiling which does. This is evident in countries like Germany where there has been significant investment in solar power - now the equivalent of two coal fired power stations, but with zero emissions.
The resultant lack of certainty for investment will greatly impede the uptake of solar power in Victoria. 4. Your Feed in Tariff is discriminatory.
The very few who may be lucky enough to benefit from your tariff will be those who can afford a 6 star house, relatively expensive efficient appliances and a 2kW array. By contrast, lower income less efficient households with a 1kW array and less efficient appliances will get no benefit. This is discriminatory.
In summary
Your assertion that the FIT "could pay off the cost of installation in less than 10 years" is incorrect. The combination of the 2kW ceiling and paying on net metering means very few, if any, will get any financial benefits from the tariff so it will be impossible for it to pay off the residual cost of solar panel installation after the rebate.
This scheme effectively does not deliver on Labor's 2006 election promise to introduce a workable feed in tariff due to its crippled nature.
Your tariff will not provide any incentive for leadership in Victoria in uptake of solar power or renewable energy initiatives.
Your tariff is not strategic and does not improve affordability of sustainable solar power. It will not empower Victorian households to take action on climate change.
I attended the rally at parliament today with 400 others to protest about the problems with your feed in tariff. I spoke to some of the many ETU members present who had expectations that the Brumby government would provide a feed in tariff that would stimulate local employment in clean energy energy industries. They feel you have let them down. I agree with them on this.
Your tariff has also not met the expectations of many local community groups who are very keen to see real government action on climate change. As such, it is a great disappointment.
I strongly urge you to adjust the tariff to remove the 2kW ceiling and use gross metering, so that Victoria can mirror the proven success of such tariffs where they have been implemented elsewhere and I understand will be implemented in the ACT.
As a reference, http://www.greenlivingpedia.org has many examples and much information about successful and implemented renewable energy policies, initiatives, and sustainable housing.
I would like to meet with you to discuss my concerns about this further. Yours faithfully,
Our solar photovoltaic array at the rear. The solar hot water system is in front.
Here is a copy of a letter I have just sent to Peter Batchelor, the Victorian Minister for energy and resources, about the importance of introducing a feed in tariff for solar power in Victoria.
Feed in tariff legislation is in the process of being enacted in South Australia and Queensland. We need this in Victoria too..
If you have time, it would be worth sending in a letter of your own to your state politicians too.
CC: Hon. John Brumby Premier of Victoria C/o Department of Premier and Cabinet 1 Treasury Place MELBOURNE VIC 3002 Via email john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
We have been operating a grid interactive solar photo voltaic array on our house in Surrey Hills since 2002, over which time we have saved approximately 15 tonnes of CO2 emissions. You can view details of the house and the solar system here.
We welcome the commitment of the Victorian state government to introduce a fair price for solar electricity generated on rooftops and fed into the electricity grid. We believe that a move toward renewable energy is an essential means of addressing climate change, and solar photovoltaic (PV) micro-generation has an important role to play in boosting Victoria’s renewable energy share.
By offering a premium price for electricity generated on rooftops and fed directly into the grid, feed-in tariffs recognise the wealth of benefits which arise from the adoption of this technology. These include:
environmental benefits from reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants
network benefits from reduced transmission losses and generation closer to the source of consumption;
supply benefits from producing clean power for the grid during peak load times on very hot days
economic benefits through lowering of peak wholesale electricity prices
social benefits via diversified electricity generation and job creation.
However, for a feed-in tariff to create the level of take-up required to achieve these benefits, it is essential that it is paid at an adequate rate, for a long enough time, and on the total production of the solar system. I call on the government to mandate a feed-in tariff at:
60 cents per kWh;
for at least 15 years; and
paid on the entire output of a system via gross production metering
A feed-in tariff set at this level will provide the necessary incentive for individuals to invest their personal finances into solar PV systems, safe in the knowledge that the price paid for electricity generated will adequately pay back this investment over the next 15 years.
Feed-in tariffs have been remarkably successful in over 40 countries internationally, and an adequate feed-in tariff in Victoria has the potential to build an industry in sustainable solutions to climate change, provide an alternative to polluting brown coal, and position the state as a leader in renewable energy in Australia.
Climate change is one of the greatest threats facing Victoria. I trust that you as the responsible minister (and the Premier and my local elected representative) take this issue seriously and ensure that this policy measure delivers a major expansion of renewable energy leading to real reductions in greenhouse gas pollution.
Can you please advise us whether you support introduction of a feed in tariff, and if so, when it will be introduced?
2008 Feed-in Tariff rally at Parliament
I couldn’t believe my ears when I saw and heard Garrett on the ABC TV news and 7:30 report tonight say in parliament today that he had to bring in the 100K household means test on solar panels because it was too successful.
Yes, that’s right. Too many people were installing too many clean green renewable energy panels. So they brought in the 100k means test to snuff this out.
Garrett’s metamorphosis is complete. He is now just another politician. The best he can offer on World Environment day is a voluntary (read ineffective) energy labelling scheme for TVs. This is totally lame.
If you would like to send an email to Peter Garrett about this you can use this form the ACF has provided on their website.Rudd can’t stop subsidising the Australian car industry that continues to build petrol guzzling V6 and V8s and throws more money at them to build hybrids. Why not redirect existing subsidies to this? Freiburg in Germany has shown what can be really done to reduce the reliance on cars.
How many more coal fired power stations will be built under the Rudd government, when we need to decommission 1 per year to meet emission reduction targets?
It didn’t take long for Labor’s “green spots” to fall off after the election.
Here is a copy of the email I sent to Garrett on the means test for the solar subsidy:============
Dear Mr Garrett
I'm very disappointed that the Government has announced new restrictions on the solar panel rebate program - at a time when Australia should be ramping up its efforts to tackle climate change.
The new $100,000 per annum household means test is going to stop thousands of Australian families from going solar, and put a big dent in our growing solar industry.
I'm calling on you to be our solar champion - and increase the means test to $250,000 per annum - the same level as the household energy and water efficiency 'green loans' program.
I also know the biggest decision your Government will make this year will be setting Australia's 2020 target for reducing our greenhouse pollution.
The target will set the scene for Australia's overall effort on climate change - and for our shift to solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy. That's why, in addition to increasing the means test for the solar rebate, I also urge you to commit to a strong greenhouse pollution reduction target of at least 30% by 2020, and ensure a cleaner, safer future for Australia.
Solar panel rebates are not middle income welfare. Solar electricity production is one of the important measures we need to take to address climate change. The $100,000 means test effectively knocks the rebate out for the vast majority of people who would have installed panels and claimed it. I personally know of five people in this situation.
Please increase the means test to $250,000 per annum.
Regards, Peter Campbell
============