 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Sandra Kanck Deputy Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Sandra Kanck Deputy Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, a question concerning the buy-back rates for green power in South Australia.
Leave granted.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: On Monday 20 November the Minister for Energy (Hon. Wayne Matthew) issued a press release notifying South Australian electricity consumers of the possibility of purchasing electricity generated from renewable sources through energy retailer AGL. The scheme allows electricity consumers to purchase 10 per cent, 25 per cent or 100 per cent of their electricity from green sources.
Green power costs 4.4¢ per kilowatt hour more than electricity produced from fossil fuels, so, for as little as an extra $1 per week, according to the minister, South Australians can now reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced to supply electricity to their homes. The Democrats are great supporters of renewable energy and, on 24 October, I asked the Treasurer why South Australia was the only state not offering consumers the option of purchasing green power. So, we applaud this move.
Unfortunately, it may be a case of one step forward but two steps back. My office has been informed that AGL and ETSA Utilities are preparing to make the production of electricity in private homes by photovoltaic (or wind power) systems less economically viable than it currently is. At the moment the system is a net metering one which means that the meter runs forward when the grid is supplying power to the home and then backward when the home is generating power back into the grid. Hence, any electricity produced is effectively guaranteed market rates or 14.25¢ per kilowatt hour.
When AGL took over ETSA Power last year it agreed to let this system continue until the end of February 2001. I am informed that AGL has decided to reduce rebates for energy generated by home renewable systems which feed into the grid. A figure as low as 3.5¢ per kilowatt hour has been suggested. That compares with the current rate of 14.25¢ per kilowatt hour or the new green power tariff to consumers of 18.65¢ per kilowatt hour. Such a poor rate of return drastically undermines the case for investing $10 000 to install a renewable electricity generating system in the home.
Further undermining the case for people producing greenhouse gas-free electricity in their homes is the advent of digital metering. With digital metering it will no longer be possible to run the meter backward, hence a new and separate meter will be required. ETSA Utilities is apparently insisting that these environmentally responsible home owners pay the cost of the new meter, and I am told that $200 will buy the cheapest digital meter available. The above scenario is consistent with cost shifting from corporation to customer which characterises the privatisation of utilities. My questions are:
1. Will the minister intervene to ensure that private producers of electricity from renewable sources are paid the going rate for green power and, if not, why not?
2. Will the minister intervene to ensure that ETSA Utilities bears the cost of the additional digital meters required for private producers of green power and, if not, why not?
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): I am happy to refer the honourable member's questions, but I think the power of the minister or indeed the government to direct commercial operations in some of these areas, as the honourable member will know, is limited, if it exists at all.
The Hon. Sandra Kanck: That's why we didn't want it sold.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It's a lovely, naive Democrats view of the world that-
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: It's the coming view of the world-most of the world, except Australia.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Gilfillan might allow me to describe the naive view of the world that I am about to assert is a Democrats view rather than assuming he knows what I am about to say. He may well be able to read minds but he could at least do me the courtesy of allowing me to finalise my response before he assumes he knows what I am about to say. What I was going to refer to as the naive Democrats view of the world is that, in some way, under a government monopoly, a policy such as this is not a cost on the community.
The honourable member has said that this is an example of a company passing the cost onto the individual. If in this area or, indeed, in any other area, there is a cost to a particular policy someone has to pay for it. If it is the whole community, through taxation, or lower dividends coming into the budget, or whatever, there is still a cost to it. It is not a wonderfully free world under a government monopoly and then all of a sudden under private sector ownership it takes on a cost. If there is a cost, it exists now and before; and if there is a cost now and before, someone has to pay it.
The Hon. Sandra Kanck interjecting:
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The honourable member may take the view that the rest of the community should pay higher overall electricity prices or the state should get lower dividends for the individuals who undertake these functions within their homes. The Democrats are entitled to adopt that response if they want to do so. However, they should not do it on the basis that in some way this was wonderfully free under a government monopoly and it is now costing something only because it is now a private sector operation. If it costs now, it cost something previously and someone had to pay for it. If under the Democrat view of the world it should not be the individual who pays for it but that it should be every other individual who pays-
The Hon. Sandra Kanck interjecting:
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If the Democrats say that every other individual should pay for it, that is the Democrats' policy, but they should not hold this wonderfully naive democratic view of the world that under government ownership and monopoly this is all free and costless. It is not. If there is a cost now, there would have been a cost under the previous ownership structures and arrangements.
The Hon. L.H. Davis: Does the honourable member understand that point?
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Time will tell. I am happy to refer the other aspects of the honourable member's question to the responsible minister and bring back a reply.
