Electricity price set to rise.

[Dave]

A NSW government rebate will be expanded to more than one million electricity consumers, to allay fears some families will be left in the dark by the state's largest-ever electricity price increases.

Electricity bills in NSW will soar by up to a total of 64 per cent over the next three years, with the federal government's proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) and rising network infrastructure costs largely to blame.

The outcome has sparked fears other states and territories could be similarly affected if the CPRS goes ahead in 20011/12 as planned.

The NSW hikes, which are even higher than those first proposed by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) in December, will see average electricity bills rocketing by between $577 and $918 a year by 2013.

Acting chairman and chief executive Jim Cox said the increases were the biggest ever presided over by the tribunal and conceded there could be similar rises in other states.

"I don't think we've had anything as big as this one," he said.

NSW Energy Minister John Robertson said the government would expand the energy rebate to an additional 275,000 people.

Assistance will now be given to all Commonwealth healthcare card holders, low-income card holders, students, and households receiving farm family assistance.

One million customers will be covered by the $145 annual rebate, about a third of the state's households.

Mr Robertson and NSW Premier Kristina Keneally acknowledged the price hikes would burden NSW families, already struggling under rising living costs.

"I'm disappointed with IPART's decision today to increase electricity prices," Mr Robertson said.

"We know this is going to hit families hard."

The government would also legislate for an energy price comparison website, so consumers could get "the best deal possible for their energy", Mr Robertson said.

Ms Keneally said she was concerned about the impact of the hikes but deflected criticism from the opposition and business that a lack of government investment in electricity infrastructure had caused the increases.

"To suggest that energy costs will not increase either with or without IPART is nonsense," Ms Keneally said.

"What matters is that we have practical solutions that we can offer to support families in meeting those costs, and that is precisely what we are delivering."

Welfare group the Council of Social Service of NSW (NCOSS) welcomed the rebate boost, saying it would provide "real relief" to the state's most vulnerable.

"While the price increases will still cause difficulties for low income households, these changes to the energy rebate scheme are a step in the right direction," NCOSS director Alison Peters said.

But business groups were less supportive, blaming poor investment in electricity infrastructure for the price hike.

"The state government stripped dividends from electricity companies and under invested in necessary poles and wires," NSW Business Chamber policy director Paul Orton said.

The opposition called on the Keneally government to reject IPART's determination.

"The government should reject these costs and come back to something families could afford," opposition energy spokesman Duncan Gay said.

The IPART determination was also a blow to the Rudd government and its stalled CPRS legislation, which has been twice rejected by the Senate.

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong defended the legislation, saying NSW network costs were to blame.

"Retail electricity prices for a typical residential customer in NSW will rise ... as a result of network factors that are entirely unrelated to the carbon pollution reduction scheme," she said.

Even if it doesn't go ahead, NSW will still face higher electricity costs with prices set to rise by up to 42 per cent by 2013.

Federal Nationals Leader Warren Truss said Australia's other electricity consumers risked higher prices.

"The government is proposing a tax that will hit every family, but yet do nothing to help the environment or lower temperatures," he said.

Thoughts ?

Dave.

 

[Old.Tony]

This writing has been on the wall for some time. CF globes in the lights, replace the swimming pool with a beach trip, install solar hot water or heat pump and turn the ruddy thing off if it's not being used ... already well down that path myself.

I'm curious about the power stations claim that because they have to reduce carbon emissions they have to raise prices, too. However, driving past Bayswater power station I noticed their sign that claimed that "All the smoke you see is really just water".

If there's no bloody carbon coming out already, why should I pay more to reduce something that isn't there?

Someone's handing out bullshit juice and expecting us to swallow it.

 

[WIR35]

Your highest energy usage is from heating, cooling and cooking. Insulation, clever building design, nverter technology in air conditioners, heat pump/solar hot water, and energy efficient appliances is what's going to save the most electricity. Problem is, these are the most expensive things to upgrade. People have been lulled into a false sense of security, they feel all warm and fuzzy if they put energy efficient light globes, but, in the grand scheme if things that is not going to have much effect on a household electricity bill. further to the point, industrial and commercial premises, i believe, is where the most savings can be made. I could go into the details and bore everyone, I've even written a computer program where I can do an energy audit of a building which I input all of their existing light fitting specifications and it automatically converts them to energy efficient equivalents and spits out real world energy and cost savings (cost of ownership, for example it might cost $10,000 to upgrade a building's lighting, but it would pay for itself over 2 years, then after that would be saving them money) , but basically:

a 20 storey office building with it's lights left on overnight would use more electricity than an entire suburb of energy efficient houses. sure, it makes the city look great with all the buildings lit up, but really, come on.....be serious. That's where the big savings are. and solar power, that's our one true un tapped clean resource

If anyone wants to talk to me about ways they can get more energy efficient in their electrical energy I am happy to chat.

 

[Krankin]

Thoughts ?

Dave.

Don't get me started....GRRRRRRRRR

 

[KraftyPg]

NSW aren't alone in this sort of stuff and each state has their own ways of screwing even more out of the public as well as increasing bills. Of course it's a joke that the less we use the more we pay but for some strange reason the power companies (and they aren't the only ones) have managed to convince the state governments that increasing bills is fine.

In Vic the biggest complaint apart from the stupid increase is the smart meters which users have no choice in getting, if you want power you will eventually get a smart meter, sure there is plenty of people claiming they wont let the installer on their property but in the real world there is little they can do to stop them. I don't know what the exact cost is but I have heard people bitching about $150+ and even if you've had a sparky install something similar you still have to get one and pay for it.

Whether you believe in global warming or not the cost of everyone going green is costing us a fortune, however the biggest problem is the increase from these companies under the guise of being green when we know damn well it's only to help their bottom line and keep shareholders happy.

 

[spender]

It's making my diesel backup generator sound cheaper for electricity than it is to buy from the elec company.

 

[KraftyPg]

get pigs and run your house on pigshit it worked for Bartertown

 

[Dave]

Don't get me started....GRRRRRRRRR

I second that comment.

All these new Green things being made. How much pollution and wastage do we get making all these new products. ?

Dave.

 

[WIR35]

I think the term green is just a way that commerce can capitalise on the movement in society whilst predominantly missing the entire point of being environmentally friendly and efficient. I mean, I think I believe in climate change and all that, I haven't been 100% convinced yet, but either way we do simply have to scale down our reliance on fossil fuels because it's finite and if we don't reduce our reliance on it there will be an economic disaster - because the oil is controlled by the arabs, and the arabs hate us, so when there's not much left of it they won't be selling it to us for anything less than top dollar. The best way to be "green" is just to be consious of everything you do, and all the little things will add up. I laugh at people who drive a hybrid lexus and live in a 600sqm mansion, and they think they're doing their bit for the environment - they're making their cuppa a bit strong I think.... To be truly environmentally friendly is an attitude to your lifestyle, it's not whether you drive a prius or are a total hippy. If you think about it enough, it just becomes a part of your natural decision making process. For me, I just don't like inefficiency and waste, it has more to do with that than trying to save the planet. I would rather earn a lot of money and live a comfortable low stress life and spend a bit more money on efficient, low impact material items, than to work 80 hours a week, try and screw everyone for as much as I can, and then go spend it on a V12 mercedes, a helicopter and a mansion.

I think that yes, companies are very much capitalising on the "green" bandwagon, but I do think that ultimately it's our own fault because we let them, it's easier than doing something about it.