The A$1.2 billion saving Australia’s electricity rule-maker just knocked back


The governing body for our energy market, the Australian Energy Market Commission, has just missed a major opportunity to modernise our electricity networks. Last week the commission rejected a proposal to pay credits to small, local generators (such as small wind, solar and gas). Our research shows that this could save electricity consumers A$1.2 billion by 2050.

In July 2015, the City of Sydney, Total Environment Centre and NSW Property Council proposed the Local Generation Network Credit rule change. This would have required network businesses to pay a credit for electricity exported into the distribution grid – that is, close to where it is actually consumed.

This is different to the credit (known as a “feed-in tariff”, or FIT) paid by electricity retailers for solar households that export power, which reflects the energy value of the solar rather than any network value. FITs are a fixed payment for the amount of power exported with no variation for the time of day. In most states, retailer FITs have replaced generous mandatory FITs set by state governments, and usually have an upper limit on system size somewhere between 5 and 100 kilowatts.

The network rule change would have been a small but crucial step towards recognising that in the future electricity will flow both to and from consumers, as more and more individuals, communities and businesses install their own generation.

It is just one of the rule changes needed to make an orderly, efficient transition, rather than a cycle where consumers get more and more frustrated as they are forced into workarounds to deal with outdated regulations, and regulators and markets play catch-up.

The cost of connection

About half of our electricity prices are made up of network charges. These cover the cost of building and maintaining the poles and wires that get electricity from generators to our homes and businesses. Traditionally, that was a long way, as electricity all came from large centralised generators.

This is all changing, as homes and businesses increasingly install their own solar, wind or gas generators. These trends are being driven by the increase in electricity prices, cost reductions in renewable energy, and a range of other motives such as climate targets, aspirations for self-sufficiency, and wishing to take control of energy spending.

Network costs have been the main contributor to a big jump in Australian electricity prices over the last 15 years. There was a huge investment to cope with the projected rise in electricity demand, which has so far failed to happen.

Described as “gold plating”, it would have been smarter and cheaper to do a whole mix of other things – energy efficiency, local generation and so on – instead of the big investment focused on network infrastructure.

Because the electricity from local generators is used physically close to where it is generated, it reduces congestion on the network and so can reduce the need to upgrade. The proposed rule change is aimed at rewarding local generators for export at peak times, when the network is under most strain, and so avoiding the long-term need for network investment.

The rule change would also enable many local generation projects, and keep them using the network to share energy. Without this incentive most generators will use their energy onsite rather than exporting to the grid.

This gets the biggest return, as it means each unit you generate avoids the entire volume charge of a unit imported from the grid.

Consumers lose out

But what if you have several buildings and want to generate at one and use it at the other? Tough luck.

Unless you can connect those buildings with a private wire – instead of connecting them via the grid – it’s unlikely to be economic. Consumers pay the same network charges whether the energy is transported across the road or halfway across the state.

This rule change would have meant that you got a network credit for the generation, and therefore helped reduce what you pay to use the network. It would be a win-win for everyone, as putting in a private wire is just duplication of the network that already exists and makes everyone – the network business, the organisation and, by implication, other consumers – worse off.

Of course, a private wire isn’t possible in all situations, but the principle remains: the local network credit offers an alternative to behind-the-meter generation.

The Institute for Sustainable Futures recently led a year-long project looking at local generation network credits and local electricity trading. The results showed pretty clearly that, if designed well, this rule change would be good for local energy projects and good for electricity consumers.

As a result of the economic modelling, we recommended that existing systems and all small (less than 10 kilowatt) systems do not receive the network credit, in order to maximise benefits for everyone. The payments are unlikely to make a difference to whether those small systems go in, and paying them the credit would means an overall cost, rather than a long-term benefit of A$1.2 billion for everyone.

This was a change from the original proposal and was presented to the AEMC in great detail. The rule change proponents were also quite happy with these limits being imposed.

So what did the AEMC decide?

The AEMC considers rule change proposals – and accepts, rejects, or makes what is called a “preferred rule”. It is a very arcane process, with little scope for collaborative outcomes.

On this issue, the AEMC delivered a “preferred rule” – which does nothing to solve the problem. The commission ignored the opportunity to work with stakeholders to deliver an alternative rule that would benefit both local projects and all consumers.

Instead, it proposes that network businesses be required to provide information on upcoming constraints, including a dollar value for alternatives to network investment. That’s all well and good, except that the information is already available in the form of Network Opportunity Maps.

Unfortunately it’s just more evidence that the AEMC has lost touch with what is actually happening in the market, and with what consumers want.

So where to now? There is a six-week consultation period on the draft rule – and we can only hope that the AEMC reconsiders its decision.


Take our Solar Quiz Compare Energy Providers and Save

Download Your FREE Ultimate Guide to Solar Power in Australia - 2021 Edition

Beginners Guide to Solar Power

If you’re considering solar for your property or just looking to maximise the savings for your solar system, download a FREE copy of our "Ultimate Guide to Solar Power in Australia - 2021 Edition".

Become an expert and better understand the ins and outs of solar power and solar PV systems for your property.

Includes detailed explanations and diagrams of the various types of solar systems and their parts, solar battery storage systems, Government incentives, expected ROI periods, finance, energy-saving tips and more!

Download Your Free Copy Now!

Latest blog & information


Please provide your email address so that we can send your free copy of "The Ultimate Guide to Solar Power in Australia - 2021 Edition".

* By clicking "Send me a copy" I agree to the terms in TQC’s privacy policy.

Thank you

A link to download your copy of "The Ultimate Guide to Solar Power in Australia - 2021 Edition" has been emailed to the address you provided.

If this message does not appear in your inbox, ensure that you have provided the correct email address or check your junk/spam folder.

This message will close in 10 seconds or

Close and back to page

Understanding Batteries

Off-Grid Systems

For some households a battery system can be of great benefit and minimise a home’s reliance on the grid. However, it’s important to understand for a battery to be useful your solar system needs to be generating excess energy for the battery to store, which you can then use at night or when the sun is not out.

When selecting a battery, you’ll want to invest in a system that is most suited to your home and can drive the best return on investment (ROI). Despite a larger upfront cost, a higher quality battery may significantly increase your ROI.

    Battery systems start from $6,000 and costs can vary greatly based on the following factors:

  1. Cycle Life-Time

    The number of times a battery can fully charge and discharge.

  2. Battery Power (kW)

    How fast it can be charged or discharged.

  3. Storage Capacity (kWh)

    The maximum amount of energy a battery system can store.

  4. Battery Management System (BMS)

    An electronic ‘smart’ system that gathers data and manages the battery ensuring it does not overload or operate outside of its safe functioning zone..

  5. Inverter

    Battery systems require their own inverter if your solar system does not have a hybrid inverter.

  6. 'All-In-One Unit’

    A system which includes the battery, BMS and an inverter all in one unit.

  7. Warranty

    Length of time or cycles the battery system is under guarantee.

  8. Blackout Protection/Backup

    It’s important to note this is not a common feature of a battery system and could cost thousands of dollars to include. Blackout protection not only requires additional components but also a specialised installation and rewiring. For grid-connected homes, the cost for blackout protection can outweigh the benefit.

Additionally, if your purpose for adding battery is to go Off-Grid and become completely independent from the grid you will need to ensure your solar system can generate enough energy to power your home and your battery system is large enough to store this energy. For homes in metro areas going Off-grid is not cost effective and is only recommended for those in remote areas with limited access to the grid. Off-grid solar systems with battery start at approximately $30,000.

[gravityform id="4"]
<p class="gform_not_found">Oops! We could not locate your form.</p>