AMA joins human rights commissioner, legal and health experts in criticising narrow terms of reference announced by federal Labor

One of the often-discussed issues in energy economics circles is the scope for EV charging, with its large loads, to make households more responsive to prices.

Greater responsiveness to prices suggests less upstream expenditure, better utilisation of capital and hence, potentially, lower prices. Or so the welfare economics theory goes. Regulators and some economists are “passionate” about this and see it as their life’s work to make prices “cost reflective”.

I have recently decided to upgrade from a plug-in hybrid car to an EV and so looked for the best charging offer. Did I find “cost reflective” tariffs that will make me more responsive to wholesale prices?

I did not need to look far to find fascinating information. My own retailer has an electricity “plan” (why are they called this, there is nothing in the nature of a “plan” about a set of prices?) that will charge my car for 8 cents per kWh if I plug in between 0h00 and 6h00.

As part of the plan they will also pay me 10 cents for each kWh that I feed into the grid from my PV (the regulated minimum is 4.9 cents) and a single rate for all other times that is a smidge higher than the Victorian Government’s “default offer” price.

Well, this is amazing. I will be worse off using my own PV to charge my car rather than to export my PV production to the grid. I would never have thought such a thing possible with feed-in rates that are not subsidised. What about the duck curve?

There is more. It might have struck you as strange that the cheap EV charging period does not correspond to the time of abundant solar. We have all heard about the “duck curve”. Long a thing in South Australia, it is now a thing in all the NEM’s markets except Tasmania.

Indeed we see this mid-day abundance in the wholesale prices. The average 5-minute wholesale (spot) price from 0h00 to 6h00 on all days for the year to 18 September 2023 (i.e. the average for those 26,280 five minute periods) in Victoria is 7.8 cents per kWh.

But for the 26,280 five minute periods between 10h00 and 16h00 it was just 1.2 cents per kWh. So why is my retailer not encouraging me to plug in then rather than between 0h00 and 6h00?

This is the obvious thing to expect, and the regulators (and often economists) are deeply wishing to see such load shift into the middle of the day to bring the duck’s belly up and its head down.

Let’s try a few answers. Customers with EVs are likely to prefer to start the day with a charged battery so will value an over-night charge more than a mid-day charge. Perhaps also my retailer thinks that many cars will not be at home to be charged in the middle of the day, so why offer something that will only have a few customers?

Contract markets, and the fact that my retailer is likely to rely on those markets (they do not own their own generation) is also likely to be part of the explanation.

For the year ahead I estimate my retailer can secure contracts for around 6 cents/kWh per kWh for electricity supplied between 0h00 and 6h00. But for supply during the 10h00 to 16h00 period they are likely to need to hold both “Base” and “Peak” contracts to hedge their exposure to spot prices. That brings the contract price to around 9 cents per kWh for supply at such time. The hedge jumps over the lazy spot

So, they can offer a comparably hedged price that is lower for supply between 0h00 and 6h00 than between 10h00 and 16h00, despite the fact that the spot prices point in exactly the opposite direction.

Contract prices might also go some way to explaining how my retailer can offer me 10 cents for my PV feed-in when the average spot price in the 6 hours that PV feeds back into the grid is just 1.2 cents (i.e. the equivalent price to my retailer is not 1.2 cents – they don’t buy from the spot market but rather the capped price of around 9 cents). Note to regulators: something to think about here next time you set minimum feed-in rates.

Finally let me also note that for my EV charging, my retailer also bears a network charge of 10 cents per kWh to pay Jemena to deliver the electricity to me. Amazingly my retailer is bearing this (presumably they expect to get this back on the margin on the electricity they sell me later in the day).

Wow. Can you imagine a tightly regulated market delivering such outcomes? Regulators would allow such things over their dead bodies.

But this is a market in action in the real world. Very different from what might be discussed in the class room of price/quantity charts assuming perfect competition.

So next time you engage in debate about duck curves, wholesale prices and customers’ responsiveness to prices, bear in mind that in reality the picture might be very different from what you expect from pre-conceived notions of how markets work and your bounded rationality. This was certainly the case for me. So much has changed in EV market

Finally, I can’t say which car I chose, but I can say the search was fascinating. What huge progress in such a short time. The last time I had a proper look at the EV market was as part of an advisory panel to the Victorian Government, a couple of years ago. Since then so much has changed.

The lithium iron phosphate battery (rare two years ago) in my chosen car can be expected to lose just 15% of its capacity after a million kilometres. This chemistry also relieves me of my concerns about nickel supply from the Congo and Russia.

The service costs for my car for 80,000 km (two services over this period) will be a touch over $1000 in total and I estimate it will cost me around $1.2 per 100km to run. Diesel or petrol cars are now around 20 times as much.

The fringe benefit tax concessions are remarkable and the car I have chosen is, I think, 9/10th of the market leader for 6/10th of the price.

Who anticipated such things? What else lies ahead that we have not had the imagination to conceive of?

There is much to grumble about, but developments in EV markets, aspects of Australian EV policies, and retail electricity markets deliver much hope for a rapid energy transition, and much food for thought.

Professor Bruce Mountain is the Director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre

I remember how big this was for a while - only for this bit of news to be buried with a short article. Surely the scale of infestation (resulting in the change in approach) is going to have significant impacts to pollinator-dependent agriculture?

State’s human rights commission says practice ineffective in making prisons safer and calls for use to be limited and eventually abolished

G'day all! Just thought I'd chuck up this random thread for a bit of a yarn. You know, sometimes it's nice to have a chinwag about anything and everything – could be your latest DIY project, a recipe you're stoked about, or even just how your day's been. It's all about sharing the good vibes and having a fair dinkum chat. So, what's the goss? Jump on in and let's have a good old chit-chat, like a bunch of mates sitting 'round the table. Cheers!

The Federal Labor government has put a $387 billion price tag on the cost of the federal Coalition’s push for nuclear energy, describing those plans as “lies and fantasies” and based around a hatred for wind and solar.

The number has been produced by the Department of Energy and is based around the cost of replacing Australia’s remaining coal fleet of 21.3GW with a minimum of 71 small modular reactors, each of 300MW.

The government estimates put the cost of such a plan at $25,000 for each Australian tax payer, and it says the Coalition claim that nuclear energy is the lowest cost form of low carbon electricity is a lie, and that nuclear is 3 times more expensive than firmed renewables.

“The Opposition want to trump the benefits of non-commercial SMR technology, without owning up to the cost and how they intend to pay for it,” federal energy minister Chris Bowen said in a statement.

The push for nuclear is being propelled by Liberal leader Peter Dutton and the National’s David Littleproud, and has been accompanied by a call to stop the roll-out of wind and solar. Littleproud has sought to justify this by saying that the net zero 2050 target means not having to do much on emissions in the next decade.

The Coalition’s campaign for nuclear has been accompanied by a massive social media and mainstream media campaign demonising wind, solar, storage and transmission.

The cost estimate from Labor is based on the GenCost report produced by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator.

The Coalition, conservative media and the nuclear lobby have attacked those reports, but in reality nuclear SMRs don’t exist in commercial form and are unlikely to in the next decade, and the lobby’s marketing claims of cheaper “mass production” are simply not believed by the energy industry.

The $387 billion price tag is even higher than Australia’s controversial commitment to spend $368 billion obtaining a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, and the SMRs would not be delivered much before the first submarines in the early 2040s.

Climate scientists say that rather than slow down the rollout of renewables and storage, Australia and other countries need to accelerate it.

They say that Australia should be pushing for a net zero target by 2035. Those calls have intensified amid new fears that the climate is nearing, or may already have passed, a new tipping point given the new temperature records on land and in the ocean, record low sea ice in the Antarctica, and numerous extreme events.

Many argue that even a net zero by 2050 target requires a zero emissions grid by 2035 in any case – something that is simply not possible if renewables are delayed while waiting for a technology that does not yet exist.

The Coalition has refused to put any costings on its nuclear plans, and Dutton talks about them in the present tense, as though they already exist. “New nuclear technologies are factory-built, portable, scalable and can even be relocated,” he has said. “New nuclear technologies can be plugged into existing grids and work immediately.”

But they can’t, because they don’t exist. As the former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Allisson MacFarlane, wrote recently, there are designs, but they are just that – designs. And none have licences to be built, and some have had their licence proposals rejected.

One U.S. company, NuScale, is the only SMR design in the US to received “design certification” from the NRC, but can’t or won’t built that, and has now reapplied for a larger unit which might be more economic.

The Coalition has also failed to explain how energy companies could keep existing coal plants running until SMRs are available. Most of Australia’s ageing coal plants are already struggling to maintain reliability even now, and would have to extend their operating lives well beyond 50, or even 60 years, in the wait for SMRs.

Bowen accused the Coalition of being climate deniers. “Peter Dutton and the Opposition need to explain why Australians will be slugged with a $387 billion cost burden for a nuclear energy plan that flies in the face of economics and reason,” he said.

“After 9 years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all the Coalition can promise is a multi bullion dollar nuclear flavoured energy policy.”

Exclusive: Leadership needs to act with urgency to address ‘culture of racism’ instead of focusing on ‘performative’ elements, says adviser

Enrolment closes tonight! Enrol or update your details now

The Australian Electoral Commission is reminding all Australian citizens 18 years and older that today is the last day to enrol to vote or check or update their details for the 2023 referendum.

• Enrolment deadline: 8pm (local time) tonight

Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers said it is the last chance to be ready to vote.

“Don’t delay – if you do, you could be one of the very few eligible people out there not ready to vote in the first referendum in nearly a quarter of a century,” Mr Rogers said.

“It’ll be the best democratic base for participation Australia has ever had and we want all eligible Australians to be a part of that.”

“Since the announcement of the 2023 referendum, there have been over 240,000 enrolment transactions submitted – approximately 15,000 a day.”

There is currently more than 17.5 million Australians on the electoral roll with at least 97.5% of all eligible Australians enrolled to vote.

Note also that anyone turning 18 years old before, or on, referendum day (14th October) is eligible to vote, but must enroll today!

So remind anyone you know who has moved since the last election, or has turned 18 recently or will by referendum day.

Yeap, 9 kids! David and Belinda breed like rats and pigs!

From Sydney to Broome, to Burnie and Townsville, Australians have hit the streets in a mass show of support for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum.

There's currently a poll going on over in !news@aussie.zone to determine whether satire should be allowed there, the poll will close on Thursday 21/09/2023, there's only been around 30 votes so far. Have your say here

These were the top posts across Aussie Zone at the end of this week

Top 5 from Australia:

• Weekly Random Thread #37 12-09-2023
• Keeping cats indoors is a rare solution where everybody wins
• Hundreds of Aboriginal children likely buried in unmarked graves at three WA missions
• Came across this guy catching some rays in Sydney today
• Intergenerational Report 2023: Australian economy built on rent seekers who produce nothing

Top 5 from Aussie Enviro:

• Bit by bit microplastics from tyres are polluting our waterways
• Australia's iconic eucalyptus was shipped across the globe. Now, this flammable tree has 'gone feral'
• "Complete habitat destruction" - scientists rally against NSW Forestry Corporation clear felling
• Loopholes and carve-outs: how tricky accounting makes a farce of carbon neutral claims
• Environment watchdog to take mine giant to court for polluting national park

Top 5 from Australian News:

• Satire Content in the Australian News Community
• Five cars destroyed at Sydney Airport after EV battery explosion
• Australian greyhound Katoby disappeared after retirement. We found him on a Chinese breeding site
• NT fire crews battle outback bushfire triple the size of the ACT
• Moderation

Top 5 from Australian Politics:

• they were warned!
• Mark McGowan pressured EPA boss to drop tough emissions guidelines in 'extraordinary' phone call
• Decision not to light up Opera House for King Charles coronation was political, emails reveal
• Every time there are 'rumours' that a leader is unpopular
• Government's $10bn Housing Australia Future Fund passes parliament - ABC News

Top 5 from World News:

• The discovery of an 'alien corpse' is all over the internet. What's really going on?

This week, I will be the first person to be prosecuted for protesting against Woodside’s Burrup project. This is the story of the raid on my home and the six-month wait for a hearing.

Federal Labor has binned hundreds of millions of Kyoto “carryover” carbon credits, permanently removing the option for them to be used in to shrink Australia’s emissions reduction task and shirk its climate responsibilities.

Federal energy and climate minister Cris Bowen announced the move on Friday, day two of the 10th Australasian Emissions Reduction Summit in Sydney, and confirmed it in person at the event.

“My colleague, assistant minister Jenny McAllister, has signed the instruction which cancels them, they’re gone,” he told the summit on Friday morning.

Australia’s surplus Kyoto credits, which had amassed to more than 700 million, have for years been a blight on Australia’s climate efforts, even when those efforts themselves amounted to the better part of nothing at all.

In 2019, the Morrison Coalition government had sought to use the credits, created under the Kyoto Protocol through soft targets and convenient accounting loopholes, to further minimise its already paltry climate mitigation efforts.