Always an option.
We don’t have a battery. Just rooftop solar PV.
Charging residential customers a fee for export is double dipping by the distributors. They also receive payment from the end users of that electricity exported the same as if it was delivered over the grid.
Residential consumers who have rooftop solar PV do not have a place at the table where these decisions, and their impacts are discussed. No surprise it is as it is.
They would still have to pay the daily service charge, the daily meter fee (as they have solar), and possibly the minimum charge if they use less than the minimum amount of power. Minimum charge per day is around $0.70 per day if no amount or less than that amount in electricity is consumed, from what I can find at the moment and it may vary by State.
Depends on retailer?
Solar plans from AGL or Origin are around $1.20 pd plus 8c pd for metering, SE QLD. Up to 15c/kWh FiT.
Rates for lowest cost for Brisbane urban, 540kWh per quarter consumption. Energy Made Easy Web site for the plan data for a flat tariff or ToU. The estimated quarterly bill was the same for either either tariff - different suppliers. I’ve assumed zero export in both instances, although the offer from Alinta provides a higher FiT if one exports.
Sumo:
$1.012 per day service charge. No added charge for a smart meter, so assume it’s included. 6c/kWh FiT if one has solar.
It’s a bit of a game trying to find the best deal.
Alinta Energy: (ToU) Time of Use tariff plan.
At $1.0953 per day service charge, no smart meter charge shown and 8c/kWh FiT if one has solar.
Possibly we are talking at cross-purposes here i.e. with different interpretations of what was meant by “go off grid” as per
In essence we are all being pushed to go off grid!
I mean: really off grid. Service disconnected (albeit maybe not physically disconnected). No billing. No purchase of power from the grid possible. No sale of power to the grid possible. No fixed daily charges. Self-sufficient.
Doesn’t ‘off grid’ mean a disconnection from the grid? It would cost a few dollars to disconnect the premises and meter but unless there are mandatory connections dictated by government there wouldn’t be daily service nor meter charges nor a minimum daily spend would there? Are there mandated requirements to be connected?
Possible to go totally off grid yes but desirable, probably not.
Thinking Of Going Off-Grid In The City? Perhaps Think Again.
Agree, I raised it as a possibility and not a certainty.
Consider?
Is it wisdom to seek to off-load some of the increasing network costs to residential customers (charges to export, FiT+) who have installed rooftop solar PV?
As storage battery costs continue to decrease the relative benefit is greatest to those who have rooftop solar. There are no network costs (up to 50% of an electricity bill) or retail costs for self consumption. For those who are reliant on the NEM for all their electrical energy, cheaper battery storage is not going to reduce the distribution or retailer’s costs.
It’s an open question whether without a reasonable return (FiT), cheaper home batteries and reserve through a home connected EV (V2H) will see 50% of consumers leave the grid?
P.S.
A question answerable with “in the fullness of time Minister”, might reflect how it is.
How can power companies pay next-to nothing for solar generated power sent back to the grid from private homes and then charge the exorbitant prices we are seeing for residential power? Surely, there has to be a higher payment by the power companies to solar system owners for this solar power generated by residential systems. At present, we are paying $0.25.kWh and being paid $0.07/kWh for any power sent back into the grid, a profit for the power company of nearly 260%!
@CatherineT, others are asking similar questions. Your post had been added to the current discussion. There may be some relevant comments in the preceding posts. There are also several older topics able to be found using the search tool and ‘solar feed-in’ as the key.
A sample:
Another specific to Victoria.
‘Solar Feed in payments VIC
You are comparing apples with oranges.
The electricity retailer buys at wholesale prices from the generators and distributers which is considerably less than they sell to end home users.
According to the AER, for first quarter 2023,
“Average quarterly prices were lower than the preceding quarter across most regions. Prices ranged from $64/MWh in Victoria to $114/MWh in Queensland.”
That is a range of $0.064 to $0.114 per KWh.
The retailer is buying your surplus solar electricity at essentially wholesale prices.
I have addressed why this occurs here.
The ABC likewise has covered it in a news article in this post.
You are lucky with your residential power tariff! In South Australia, my lowest tier is $0.36.30/kWh (SA Power Networks).
But my solar power generation rate is $0.5.2/kWh - which set by my provider:
Diamond Energy Standard Feed-in Rate of 5.2 cents/kWh.
Still rubbish! Should be like for like - buy wholesale from me and sell power back that I have generated back to me at wholesale rates.How I wish I could leave the grid and just use my own power! The whole system is crooked. We are paying the highest prices for power in the world.
If you use your own generation you use it free. Want to pay wholesale?
You can if you invest about $30-50,000 depending on the scale you need, including the panels, batteries, and a backup generator.
If you accept this as a guide it seems we are roughly mid-point.
That isn’t how the energy market works. While you may not disagree, it is the reality of why FITs are different to use tariffs offered by the electricity retailers.
As indicated above, and also advised by a large range of different sources, one shouldn’t rely on FITs to pay for a domestic PV installation. If one wants a reasonable payback, use as much of the electricity generated by your own PV system. A system should be sized to offset any use within the home during 9-10am to 3-4pm. Any bigger than this, payback periods get longer. Install a big oversized system hoping to make money from FITs, it is possible that the system will never pay for itself.
Unfortunately many state governments introduced ridiculously generous FITs about 20 years ago to encourage solar installations, and this has set an expectation that ridiculously generous FITs should occur irrespective of how the electricity market operates. Someone has to pay for FITs greater than the pool price when PV systems export to the grid. If ridiculously high FITs were offered, charges and use tariffs offered by the retailers would be considerably higher. This would impact on those who don’t have solar - which is very unfair.
The system and how consumers have been charged for electricity has never been fair. It has been further skewed/changed when some governments adopted policies to privatise the industry. Electricity was a service delivered only by government. The capital investment in generation, transmission and distribution was carried by the public purse. Everyone shared that cost based on their ability to contribute towards taxes. IE relative wealth and ability to pay.
How the operating costs were recovered was a decision for each government. Some governments even competed with each other offering cheaper power to large users such as aluminium to attract the industry to the state or local region. It was argued the flow on benefits to the state outweighed any perceived concession in the tariffs offered. The state could suck up the concession and fund it from general revenue, or absorb it into the costs paid by other users.
Times have changed. The principle of an asset shared by the community and funded by the community based on who can most afford to fund the service for social good are long gone. Electricity must now be priced as a profit making enterprise, where the user pays for what they take.
This may seem a fairer if more expensive outcome for some. It’s important to consider the two most expensive components of the cost of supply of electricity.
Until relatively recently residential consumers were always charged a flat tariff for electricity. It was independent of whether they were a large user or a small user. It was independent of when one used electricity or whether the maximum taken in any part of the day was more or less than any other customer. There are residential customers who are not large users of electricity, including those who may use gas for heating and or cooking. They pay the same tariff for electricity as their neighbour who might have an all electric home, cook on an electric stove and heat using electric heating in the evening.
The progressive introduction of smart meters has enabled the industry to differentiate between residential customers. It’s possible to charge those who make greater use of electricity during peak demand periods a higher tariff. It’s generically referred to by the term ‘cost reflective tariffs’. Hence there are now ToU (time of use) and Demand based tariffs. Is this fairer? If all residential customers had smart meters and supply could be charged according to the time of day and peak demand it could be.
Reality is the majority of residential customers are still using old style accumulation meters. Those customers are still charged based on a flat tariff. Hence those who are large users with high peak demands are paying less than their fair share and those using less than average or with little extra demand in peak periods are paying more than their fair share.
For those with smart meters and or solar PV, the situation differs between supply regions and states as to what tariffs are offered. It is in writing from the AEMC that smart meters would reduce the costs associated with metering and result in a saving to the customer. That in some regions smart meters are an added cost is contrary to that objective.
What’s fair when it comes to residential feed-in tariffs?
Even without the benefits of a feed-in credit the system has an unfair starting point. Residential Rooftop Solar PV through self consumption has taken approx 15% from that market. PV export has also introduced additional daytime supply further reducing the revenue stream of the generators.
There has also been a proportionate impact on the transmission and distribution network operators. For these businesses their greatest costs are not operational. Their businesses are capital intensive with the cost base of their asset the most significant factor when the AER has made its rate of return determinations. Taking 15% out of the network operators revenue stream is not an option.
For customers with Solar PV the industry has a choice. It’s more complex than just the difference between the export tariff and supply tariff. Rooftop solar PV has made an impact on the costs to supply electricity and for enterprises invested in the industry their profitability. Since they are assured of a return, it’s unlikely the solar PV consumers circumstance will change.
I can stand this no longer. Please correct the title of this topic to reflect the correct spelling and grammar.
It should be feed-in and tariffs.
I am sure that there are many customers thinking that. The question is: what steps have you taken to investigate the reality of that?
What are the specs of your current system? What is your consumption like? What expansion, if any, would be required?
Once you do that I can imagine that one of two outcomes will eventuate:
However before doing that you might at least see whether you are on the best plan with the best retailer taking into account your specific circumstances.
Clearly also you should look into whether there are any easy but realistic ways of minimising your consumption (and to do that might mean getting an understanding of where your consumption is currently being used).
Finally, there may be options for you to adjust your current system that make economic sense while remaining on the grid.
I guess that is kind of what a battery is for. Most commentators though I think are saying that prices would have to deteriorate further before a battery is justifiable on economic grounds.
Just wondering … is that going to be legal in an urban area?
Running a generator in an urban area is going to be quite unpleasant for your neighbours. Even if legal, it could have negative consequences for you regarding your neighbourly relations.
(That doesn’t apply to @CatherineT but I am asking in the generic sense for the thousands of other customers who are thinking the same thing.)
