News and analysis of the clean energy economy

According to the controversial new rules proposed by the Australian Energy Market Council, the main rule maker of the energy market, millions of Australian households may soon be subject to additional "solar taxes" for exporting solar energy to the grid.

In the draft ruling issued on Thursday, AEMC proposed the introduction of a "two-way" pricing system, which ostensibly will help reduce grid "traffic congestion" because it will allow the network to customize its own pricing mechanism to ensure investment in the grid. The part of the grid needed.

Based on the model in its large 250-page document, AEMC proposes to impose a tariff of 2c/kWh on exports during the day. This will cost up to $100 per year, but it does not recommend uniform or mandatory tariffs, and hopes that consumers and the network negotiate flexible results.

AEMC said this will encourage the network to send "price signals" to help reduce grid congestion. In the final analysis, they hope to encourage more families to install more battery storage and reduce exports during peak hours.

But the new proposal will be complex, will involve negotiations between the network and consumer groups, and then require the approval of the Australian energy regulator. They may take years to be introduced for the first time and may be rejected by individual states.

AEMC CEO Ben Barr said in a statement: "This is about creating tailor-made options, not a package solution."

"We want to open the solar portal so that more Australians can join the already leading 2.6 million small solar owners. But it is important to do this fairly. We want to avoid using a first-come, first-served system because it will Limit the ability of more solar energy to enter the grid."

AEMC and monopoly network companies have been pushing for some form of solar tax for many years, believing that the grid is not designed for two-way traffic and requires a lot of investment to adapt to this.

The scale of this additional investment is highly controversial, and AEMC abandoned its proposal to introduce a comprehensive solar export tax four years ago. But last year, major consumer groups including Total Environment Centre, St Vincent de Paul Society Victoria and the Australian Council of Social Services, and network company SA Power Networks urged a range of different options.

Their argument is that some form of solar tax could be allowed if they ensure that the network company invests the required funds into the network to remove some of the major restrictions on solar homes-many of which are restricted or prohibited from exporting back to the grid . It's all because of network problems.

TEC's Mark Byrne wrote in RenewEconomy last year that existing rules do not create any obligations or incentives for the network to adapt to higher solar and battery exports.

"In fact, they include incentives not to invest to take full advantage of existing hosting capacity or to expand it. As a result, the current rules are starting to become obstacles," he wrote. "Not only are inverters tripping more frequently due to overvoltage, but export restrictions are becoming more common, including zero exports (rumors, especially in Victoria)."

However, Byrne strongly advocates that network costs should be placed in context. Byrne estimates that network upgrades to substations and other infrastructure may only account for more than 1% of total network expenditures, and any new costs need to be taken into account.

AEMC seems to have accepted the methods of ACOSS, TEC and SAPN. "This gives the Internet even more reason to provide high-quality export services that customers value. At present, there is no financial penalty for poor network export services, and there are no rewards for good services."

Some solar energy advocacy groups strongly oppose any export tax, believing that these networks have reaped substantial returns through the existing network tariffs and the historical "gold-plating" of the grid, and they should make the necessary investments to adapt to the new focus on distributed vitality.

"It's like arguing that bicycles should be charged for the use of roads," said Bruce Mountain of the Victorian Energy Policy Center. "The application of solar energy is one of our great successes in the energy transition."

At the same time, the new agreement and inverter standards mean that rooftop solar systems are now "closed" at different times-under the direction of the Australian energy market operator-to keep the grid stable. As we reported here, the first such incident occurred last week.

This is also regarded as another tax plunder for new technologies, because it occurs at the same time that state governments are levying road user taxes on electric vehicles, and most of the rest of the world is providing incentives to encourage the use of electric vehicles.

"We know that people are very interested in this issue," Barr said in a statement. "We have heard and understood the concerns of some solar energy owners about whether they can realize the value of their investment if the system changes.

"We want to assure solar customers that we will not recommend that they all start paying export fees. We hope that the network will provide pricing recommendations in close consultation with consumers, which may include the option of not having to pay for exports."

AEMC stated that its modeling shows that the introduction of export charges will result in lower bills for 80% of consumers who do not have rooftop solar, “because they will no longer pay for unused solar export services.”

It said that for 20% of solar customers, it may be affected by a series of export fees, depending on the size of the system. A 4 to 6 kilowatt system will return approximately US$900, or approximately US$70 less than it is now. But if they consume more of their own power, the impact will be less.

"Doing nothing is not an option, because preventing people from exporting electricity will cost them more now and in the future. Although the export costs of 4-6kW systems may cause a slight decline in solar revenue, if the owner is only 10% of the time Are restricted from exporting energy, they will face the same decline.

"Being restricted 50% of the time will reduce their solar revenue by more than $300 a year. We need to think about the power system in a different way—including its pricing structure," Barr said. "We found that buying batteries can benefit customers more and also help the system.

According to Sunwiz, about 33,000 Australian homes have installed battery storage in 2020, but for example, the installation cost of Tesla Powerwall 2 used by AEMC in its modeling may exceed $14,000, and most analysts say they cannot provide positive returns invest.

However, many installations are to maintain power safety during power outages and outages. However, AEMC believes that the return on battery storage investment can be improved by a new tariff structure that rewards homeowners who install batteries.

AEMC is seeking feedback on its proposal by May 13 before making a final decision in June. Then it hopes that the network and consumer groups will start discussing custom packaging after this.

See also: Does rooftop solar really cause network bottlenecks?

And: No big shots or rubbish jobs? Solar energy advocates react to export tax proposal

And: Modeling: How the proposed rooftop solar tax will affect solar homes

Giles Parkinson is the founder and editor of Renew Economy, and the founder/editor of One Step Off The Grid and The Driven, which focuses on electric vehicles. Giles has been a journalist for 40 years, a former business person and associate editor of the Australian Financial Review.

@ Copyright RenewEconomy 2020. all rights reserved.