You are not rambling.
Totally believable, if?..
A reasonable suspicion is many Australian households are already a long way down this path. Hence the likely gains may be much less than imagined.
Drawing a comparison without some measured reference points leaves the suggestion open to differing interpretations.
Firstly to extreme optimism, that we can do much more as consumers to reduce our energy use and hence costs, and even lower our household carbon footprint.
A second more cynical view point is that we can by adopting more energy efficient strategies hang on to high carbon energy sources without wasting money on enterprise level change. A HELE power station or two might then be seen as a good idea!
It might help understanding to see some real data points introduced to the discussion, otherwise it becomes a rather ‘point’ less discussion?
What are these golden opportunities?
My vote -
P.S.
An unintended consequence of saving money by using less is the size of the national energy economy potentially decreases, causing businesses to earn less, invest less and employ fewer.
It’s a loss to the national economy that we don’t manufacture most of what we purchase to improve our energy efficiency. Although some consumers might suggest the local retailers and distributors make up for it through high markups to cover their inefficiency and margins on borrowed capital. The businesses doubtless suggest higher costs are down to red tape, taxes and expensive wages for staff?
Another aside asks how to encourage the uptake of more energy efficient practices and reduce costs to consumers. The need to provide the necessary investment raises the option of means testing government funding to favour lower income residences with a zero cost of changeover?
Perhaps relating the possible reduction in demand within the NEM and also interconnecting grid can deliver a much more significant financial saving. The cost benefits of making the existing infrastructure capacity go further could be worth quite a large government funding program!
Are the opportunities sufficient to avoid political derailing through debate over providing benefits to the 40% of Australian’s in low income households vs the 50% in the middle?
There are alternate arguments for prioritising expenditure from the public purse on zero emissions outcomes in preference to lower emissions technology.
Another more liberal and conservative argument might be that the public purse should fund nothing, given the user always pays, let the users who can and so choose self fund. It’s a market decision what happens next? Likely also not the first time a market has set a course to self destruct!
Irrespective of leaning asking households to pay more to export surplus to the grid aligns most strongly with the last mentioned direction?