Posts

Price Hike: The Cost of Green Energy Policies on Australian Power Bills

,

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike – between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we’ve been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up!

I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning – they recently added “emissions reduction” to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn’t have been approved before – they couldn’t name a single one!

The truth is clear: We’ve gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren’t accidents – they’re the direct result of failed green energy policies.

Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signalling that drives up costs for families and businesses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The default market offer for electricity prices is going up yet again. You published a draft notice, I understand, contemplating rises between 2.5 per cent and 8.9 per cent. For 20 years, Australians have been told that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy, yet electricity prices are going up again. Mr Oliver, are you seeing any kind of indications in the bill stack that show you will be able to actually cut the default market offer for electricity prices in the near future?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few different components, as you mentioned, in that stack that go to comprise the default market offer. It is ultimately, of course, only the benchmark offer that’s applicable to standing offer contracts. That’s less than 10 per cent of customers in most regions. Most pay less, of course, because they’re on market offer contracts, which typically sit under those default levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is representative, isn’t it?  

Mr Oliver: Not representative, no. I’d say it’s more of a safety net. So it’s more at the upper end of what most consumers would pay. For example, a customer might not have gone into the market, not shopped around for a market offer, and might be on a standing offer contract. As I say, that’s generally less than 10 per cent. But the vast majority of consumers pay less than the default market offer price. Indeed, the ACCC put out a report in December last year as part of their electricity price monitoring saying that roughly 80 per cent of consumers could pay even less than they are today if they continue to shop around.  

Senator ROBERTS: So do you see any signs of the default market price coming down?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few key components. The biggest variable is wholesale cost. Network costs are reasonably steady year on year. Retail costs have gone up, at least in our draft decision this year, but we’re still studying those. In terms of the wholesale cost component, we have seen over the last year some high-price events in the spot market, some volatility in the spot market. That is continuing to put upward pressure on the forward contract market, the prices that ultimately are responsible for setting a lot of the wholesale energy cost. They’re difficult to predict year on year. We don’t necessarily see them continuing to increase. If market conditions alleviate, that wholesale cost can potentially come down. We will, of course, look at those again more closely before we put out our final decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was going to be this, but I think you’ve answered it: in the data you’re seeing, is there any realistic hope that electricity prices can go back down to what they were five years ago under the current policy settings?  

Mr Oliver: Well, it’s a question of time. We don’t anticipate that kind of decline between now and the final decision. But there are obviously plans in place to continue the rollout of renewable generation and other forms of generation as well across the energy market, across the NEM, and, as we see more of that generation capacity coming into the system, that will alleviate pressure on wholesale costs. There’s work underway at the moment to look to orchestrate and utilise all of the consumer energy resources that we have in the system at the moment—20 gigawatts of rooftop solar, for example, which could be utilised more effectively to also bring down those wholesale costs as well. There are various ways. It’s a number of pieces that need to be looked at to do that. But yes, all of those trends will, over time, see the wholesale cost of energy come down.  

Senator ROBERTS: So those trends will help reduce the full bill stack?  

Mr Oliver: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions reduction was recently added to the national electricity objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. Can you provide an example of a project that went ahead after the emissions objective was added that would have been rejected under the previous objectives, or a project that was prioritised higher?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one specific project that would meet that criterion. We would probably need to take that on notice to see if we could identify one. It is, as you described the objective quite correctly, one that has a number of different facets. So, whenever one is making a decision that requires the application of that objective, it’s about weight and deciding how various things are taken into account. What the amendment does is say quite explicitly that one of the things to be considered is emissions targets and objectives that are enshrined in policy and legislation, but that doesn’t necessarily point to a project which then gets up that might have otherwise failed. I can’t think of one now, but we might take that on notice as well, just to confirm that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you had four factors: quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. You’ve had added now emissions reduction. So you can’t see any project that has been brought forward because of emissions reduction at the moment?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one now. I’m glancing at my colleagues and they’re not nodding either, but we’d perhaps take that on notice just to see. It may well be that the answer would be that there’s no project that would meet that specific criterion. It affects other things of course, in terms of proposals for expenditure in a network proposal, for example. There might be a stronger case for investment in a particular area that might otherwise not have been as strong a case. But those are very complicated and multifaceted decisions where you’re looking at a lot of different things.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the relative weights of those now five criteria? 

Mr Oliver: We don’t do it in any specific quantitative sense. If, for example, it is an expenditure proposal, we would be looking at the driver behind the proposal, why the network, if it is a network project, says that they wish to undertake that expenditure, who they’ve consulted with, which of the objectives they’re trying to meet, and whether they’re doing it at the most efficient cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/3 Comments/by

$2.15 Billion in Subsidies: The Hidden Costs of “Cheap” Renewables

,

During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned ARENA about their massive spending of taxpayer money. The numbers are staggering – they’ve now committed $2.15 billion in subsidies to supposedly “cheap” renewable projects.

Despite claims that solar is “the cheapest form of electricity generation in history,” Australians’ power bills tell a different story. The reality is they don’t account for all the extra costs of firming, storage, transmission lines and general unreliability. This is what happens when government agencies focus on pushing unreliable renewables instead of ensuring affordable power for Australian families.

We used to have some of the cheapest electricity in the world, but these massive subsidies and failed green energy policies are driving up costs for everyone.

The net zero fantasy is already hurting our regions, ruining small businesses, and driving up the cost of living across Australia. It’s time to ditch these wasteful subsidies and return to reliable, affordable power.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever think about how much taxpayer money your agency has spent on net zero policies, only for power bills to continue to get more expensive? 

Mr Miller: Senator, that doesn’t occupy much of my time. We’re working on innovation to help lower the cost of the core technologies that go into lowering power bills in the long term. And, as you would appreciate, this innovation cycle takes a while. We’ve obviously seen the success of solar PV, which was maybe written off many years ago, but has come through as the lowest cost form of generation in history, as we’ve noted in past conversations. I’m very confident, actually, that wind technology, solar technology and battery technology, which is coming down the cost curve rapidly, combined at scale will actually reduce energy costs for Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your job to bring down power bills or give money to solar and wind energy? How much does the Australian Renewable Energy Agency currently administer in deployed capital in terms of loans or equity stakes? 

Mr Miller: The objects of ARENA, the agency, are set out in the act. They are to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, increase the supply of renewable technologies and support Australia’s decarbonisation emissions reduction objectives. You’d be aware that we’re a granting agency, so none of our funding is provided through debt and equity. It’s all through the provision of grants. In some circumstances, those grants are recoupable based on performance of the projects, and we make that decision on a case-by-case basis. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How much did ARENA issue in grants in the most recent year? 

Mr Miller: I can get you that in a minute or two. My colleague Mr Faris could probably find that number in the pack. When we think about the progress of our work in terms of project projects, we look at approval rates, which is the key milestone for ARENA when I, under my delegation, or our board, or the minister— 

Senator ROBERTS: Getting a project to approval stage. 

Mr Miller: When we provide an approval, we then, in most circumstances, are working through to a contract, which ultimately lands to be grant money flowing. But that can take months and years in some cases. But I think in the last financial year we provided approvals of $497 million, and I think in the year before it was $540 million. So, per our annual report: funds approved in 2023-24 total $445 million, and contracts written, which is a later stage, were $392.5 million in that financial year. 

Senator ROBERTS: So what did you call your key measurable indicator? 

Mr Miller: Approvals. Well, it’s one of many, but, yes, that’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you categorise as an approval? 

Mr Miller: An approval is a decision by the CEO, the board or the minister, with respect to their relative delegations, to provide funding to a particular project in that amount. 

Senator ROBERTS: Approve the funding? 

Mr Miller: Approve funding, yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what your total budget allocation is over the forward estimates, the next four years? 

Mr Miller: That will be in the PBS, and we will get that number for you if we can. Otherwise, we’ll take it on notice and provide it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that located in one area? Are all the different components of the money located in one area? 

Mr Miller: It’s an aggregation of various programs and funding pools that we have been provided with by the government over time. Well, let me say governments because we were well supported by the coalition government a number of years ago, and have been even further supported by this government. But it relates to what we call our baseline funding, which is the money that is provided to ARENA where ARENA’s board, essentially, is the primary decision-maker on policy and programmatic objectives. And then, in addition, there are about a dozen programs that ARENA is running, with specific funding amounts, and with specific instructions through the policy instruments, and we’re managing all of that through the funding. But it all gets amalgamated, ultimately, into the forward estimates amounts. So I’d be very happy to read you the figures in the forward estimates for each year, revenue from government, if that would help you. The current year’s revenue from government is $425 million. The budget for next year is $709 million. The year after that, it is $735 million. Then we’re at $1.1 billion, and then we’re at $1.117 billion for the final year of the forward estimates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a lot of money. 

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ever since ARENA came on the scene—when was that?—you’ve been issuing grants and loans in solar and wind. Have people’s power bills actually got cheaper? 

Mr Miller: It’s not my jurisdiction to talk about power bills, but we came on the scene on 1 July 2012, and as I— 

Senator ROBERTS: In 2012? 

Mr Miller: Yes, 2012, and, as I mentioned before, we don’t do loans. We do grants. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t do loans—well, issuing grants then. So you’ve been spending billions of  

dollars, and power bills have gone up. 

Senator Ayres: Well, Senator, you should— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Miller. You don’t need to— 

Senator Ayres: Yes, and I’m entitled to drop in from time to time. It’s one of the inconvenient bits of  

estimates for senators who ask questions. If you go and talk to your constituents in the main street of a country town somewhere in Queensland— 

Senator ROBERTS: Which is what I’ll do. 

Senator Ayres: Yeah, I know. We saw you beaming in. But if you talk to them and then listen to the answer that they give you—engage in a conversation—what you’ll find is that many of them have solar technology on their roofs, which substantially decreases their electricity costs. 

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I actually was talking to a shopkeeper yesterday, and she said— 

Senator Ayres: Fascinating as that is, I am just going to keep answering your question. 

Senator ROBERTS: power bills have gone up tremendously. 

Senator Ayres: That is technology that was invented in Australia. All of the IP in solar panels all around the world—it’s Australian, right? It’s something that we should be proud of as a country—invented here, substantially reducing costs for households, with some of them earning a quid because they are under residual agreements. 

Senator ROBERTS: Without your subsidies, without your energy relief, the costs would be higher than ever. 

CHAIR: Okay. And we are running out of time. 

Senator Ayres: They are substantially benefiting from that technology. Now, it’s different for different households. Our job as a government is to make sure that the lowest-cost technology is in the system, and also to make sure that more of those Australian inventions are commercialised here in Australia and manufactured in Australia, and Mr Miller and ARENA’s work is to make sure that more of that technology is commercialised in Australia, and they’re doing a very good job indeed. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your policies are driving up prices 

/0 Comments/by

The Energy Lies

,

No one trusts politicians because of their lies. PM Albanese promised power bills would drop by $275 by 2025, but they’ve only increased. Despite claims that wind and solar are the cheapest, power bills have never been higher after 20 years of introducing these “renewable” sources.

The Liberal Party’s motion complains about high power bills but ignores the real issue – NET ZERO.

The ONLY elected party that opposes this scam and is committed to lowering power bills is One Nation. Labor, Liberals, and Nationals all support expensive energy. The truth is coal is the cheapest way to run our electricity grid. India and China use our coal, yet Australians can’t. Make it make sense!

One Nation has a plan to permanently reduce power prices by ensuring baseload power stability. This would cut bills immediately by 20% and ultimately by 50%.

Vote One Nation to put more money back in your pocket and end the net zero lies.

Transcript

No-one trusts politicians, because of lies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised Australia that power bills would come down $275 by 2025; 2025 is here and power bills have never been more expensive, and they’re still increasing. Australians are constantly told wind and solar are cheapest. That might be the greatest lie in Australian political history, and that is saying something. Well, after 20 years of connecting all the wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro to the grid, power bills have never been higher. 

This is a motion from the Liberal Party, complaining, yet it says nothing about the reason power bills are still so expensive. There is a reason why Queenslanders are worried about running their air conditioning and why local small businesses are closing: that’s net zero. There’s only one elected party in the Senate that opposes the net zero scam, and that’s One Nation. We are the only ones that truly believe in making power bills cheaper. Labor is committed to wind and solar—super expensive. The Liberals the Nationals are committed to wind, solar and nuclear—very expensive. None of them will promise that your power bills will come down under their plan, because they can’t. The truth is that under net zero Australia faces decades of increasing power prices. 

There’s a big secret that every politician in this room knows yet won’t say out loud: the absolute cheapest way to run an electricity grid today is coal. Even if you believe in net zero, let’s have a serious look. Australia’s annual carbon dioxide production is 465 million tonnes. India and China together are 16 billion tonnes, 35 times as much. India and China are allowed to buy Australia’s coal and use it, yet Australians can’t use their own coal here in our country. One Nation would get rid of this nonsense. We have a plan to bring down power prices permanently. Right now, baseload power is told to immediately shut down whenever wind and solar unpredictably turn on. Coal is what’s known as baseload power; it’s designed to run effectively and efficiently, 24/7, up to 98 per cent of the time. Turning baseload power off completely in unplanned ways is a huge problem. This leads to much higher prices, increased maintenance costs and, in some cases, power stations breaking down owing to the abuse they weren’t designed for. 

The solution is very simple: just guarantee baseload power the minimum time needed to keep spinning. Wind and solar can fill in the rest if they happen to turn on. The most conservative scenario is that this will bring down power prices 20 per cent immediately. Taken to full effect, this could bring power bills down 50 per cent. The Liberals, Labor and the Nationals will never bring down your power bills like this, because they are completely committed to net zero nonsense—net zero lies. One Nation, and only One Nation, will put more money back in your pocket. 

/3 Comments/by

One Nation’s View of “The Future Made in Australia” Bill 2024

,

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of legislation that One Nation would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam. This Bill continues wasteful spending, now with a hint of desperation. 

The Bill introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 per kilogram, aiming to meet net zero targets. However, if hydrogen were commercially viable, companies and banks would be investing, but they aren’t. One Nation believes in the profit motive, not subsidies. 

Recent withdrawals from hydrogen projects by companies like ATCO and Shell highlight the unviability of green hydrogen. In contrast, One Nation supports practical projects like the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, which will bring thousands of jobs and $8 billion in private investment. 

The Bill also offers tax incentives for refining critical materials used in renewable energy, costing $7 billion over 11 years. This benefits processors, not taxpayers. One Nation proposes infrastructure projects to support critical minerals development instead. 

Lastly, the Bill changes borrowing rules for Aboriginal communities without actually specifying the new rules, creating uncertainty and potential debt for unviable projects. One Nation cannot support this lack of transparency. 

The net zero transition is destroying Australia with absolutely no benefit to the natural environment.  

It’s time we returned to reliable coal and gas fired power stations.  This measure will put more money back in Australians pockets and end further suffering. 

Transcript

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation.  

The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen was commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren’t. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn’t happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It’s called the profit motive.  

Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years, using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity. 

Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It’s marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it’s using it’s shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they’re legislated.  

There’s nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it’s a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation.  

Let’s move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries, used to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it, but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We’re tossing money at these people, and it’s wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. ‘What’s a billion here or there?’ says the government. 

The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there’s no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people’s money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation’s proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs. 

Let’s move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It’s even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don’t, and yet you’re going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either. 

In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won’t touch. 

Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as ‘Minister for Blackouts’, Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let’s see what the government does intend.  

The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It’s costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It’s now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering. 

I’m now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living. 

Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you’re going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people’s pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order: 

The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution … 

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero. 

I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It’s almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn’t tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia. 

Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians’ pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money. 

/by

Battery Storage Projects Face Delays and Cost Increases

Wind and solar don’t work at night or when the wind isn’t blowing. Australia is told the solution is batteries! Real world experience shows that batteries are too expensive, too slow to build and don’t last long enough to support a grid.

During this session with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), I revisited the status of the eight large-scale battery storage projects funded in 2022, noting that $176 million had been allocated but none had completed construction by February. I was told that while all projects are progressing, some face challenges like grid connection issues. I highlighted the significant cost increase from $2.7 billion to $3.1 billion and questioned the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these batteries compared to coal-fired power stations.

I also raised concerns about the stability and reliability of renewable energy sources like solar and wind, and the additional costs associated with making them grid-compatible. Additionally, I asked ARENA about their responsibilities and the financial transparency of their operations. I emphasised the high cost of electricity in Australia compared to countries like China and criticised the impact of net-zero policies on manufacturing.

We need to ditch net-zero. Use the cheap resources we have in Australia’s ground for Australians first!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I return to the eight batteries in the large-scale battery storage funding round from 2022. In February you told me that you had put $176 million into it. None had completed construction as at that time and only two of the eight were under construction. Have any completed construction? What is the status of the others in the round of eight?

Mr Miller: They have progressed. I don’t have the precise figures to hand—unless my colleague finds a brief on that in the notes—in which case I can provide that information on notice. But they’re all progressing. Some have challenges around grid connection and various studies that have to be completed. They’re not all there yet, but I think the vast majority have reached their targets for the ARENA funding and would be either close to construction or close to financial decision.

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency this would have been one of the biggest projects and most important aspects of what you do; is that correct?

Mr Miller: It’s important and is amongst many other important things that we work on.

Senator ROBERTS: In December 2022, the portfolio cost of the eight batteries was $2.7 billion. That increased to $3.1 billion, which is roughly a 16 per cent increase. What is the latest cost of the portfolio? What is the updated figure?

Mr Miller: What are you talking about?

Senator ROBERTS: The portfolio cost of the eight batteries was $2.7 billion. What’s the latest cost?

Mr Miller: That information that you had that was publicised would be the most up-to-date information that we have.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the $3.1 billion?

Mr Miller: Some of the batteries increased in capacity. Since we announced the program, the proponents who were developing those batteries actually increased the size of the batteries, given that the economics were improving and that they could get the job done and actually build more. That capital cost increase would be in relation to an increase in the capacity of the batteries that are being developed.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve gone above two gigawatts and 4.4 gigawatt hours?

Mr Miller: As I said, if you want precise information I will get you that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That would be good. That seems like a hell of a lot of money for a bunch of batteries that only last two hours and lose 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the power to charge them?

Mr Miller: That’s not accurate.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the accurate figures?

Mr Miller: The minimum size in that portfolio is a two-hour battery. Some of them are three and I think one of them has gone to four hours. Again, I’ll check that just to make sure. The batteries are playing a very important role. The project as described by ARENA and the innovation that’s in this portfolio is around what’s called grid-forming capabilities. It’s the ability for these batteries to essentially replace the very important system services that coal- and gas-fired power stations provide.

Senator ROBERTS: Stability of the grid?

Mr Miller: Stability of the grid, voltage frequency.

Senator ROBERTS: What we call ‘firming’?

Mr Miller: I think firming would traditionally be thought of as providing the energy that’s required to fill gaps. These batteries are providing power quality services. Firming would be about the quantum of energy and power services, or these system security services, are about performing the very important electronic functions that the grid needs to remain stable and at the right frequency.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that solar and wind are asynchronous, inherently unstable and therefore you need to provide an additional service so that the grid maintains stability?

Mr Miller: Again, that’s not also strictly true. There is technology around solar and wind, inverters, that converts the DC electricity into AC and that can provide grid-forming capabilities as well. The latest wind turbines coming out of Goldwind, for example, in China have system security services built into those inverter technologies. It’s not only the batteries that are advancing; it’s actually the solar inverters and the wind technology inverters as well that’s advancing to provide the services.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that at an additional cost?

Mr Miller: It may or may not be. It may be integrated into the technology that’s put forward.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to the next one. On a very conservative cost of $4.5 million per megawatt installed and a capacity factor of 90 per cent, a $3.1 billion coal-fired power station would produce 15 gigawatt hours of data capacity versus just 4.4 gigawatt hours for the batteries. Unlike the batteries, the coal station actually generates power. It doesn’t lose power on charging. Doesn’t that seem like a much cheaper investment for Australians, just coal-fired power stations?

Mr Miller: You’re fundamentally misunderstanding the different role of those coal-fired power stations that you mentioned in the old world and the role of these kinds of batteries in supplementing wind-solar transmission system demand flexibility. The new world we are well underway, progressing into and entering requires a variety of technology. These batteries provide a very specific set of technologies and services that in combination with wind, solar, transmission and all the other things I mentioned, provides you with a system that is stable and can do the job.

Senator ROBERTS: At inherently higher component costs. There’s a lot of confusion amongst constituents and amongst MPs and senators. Among the various agencies charged with some responsibility or accountability over energy transition, could you as simply and as specifically as possible tell us what ARENA does? What are your basic accountabilities and, specifically, what is the uniqueness of that? There’s accountability that no other agency has.

Mr Miller: That’s a good question. We are an agency that is specifically around to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, to increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia and to facilitate the achievement of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Our functions include the provision of financial support in the form of grant support and the sharing of knowledge, which is very important to ensure the money we spent is leveraged and available to more than just the proponent we fund so that Australia’s energy transition can happen in an accelerated and stable fashion.

Senator ROBERTS: Specifically with regard to the people at the table, apart from Senator Ayres—and he’d be happy that I’m leaving him out—what is the total salary package of each of the people at the desk here? I’ll exempt anyone who’s not at Senior Executive Service level, but if you are at executive level I’ll ask for the band you’re in and the total remuneration package, including on-costs?

Mr Faris: I’m a band 1 officer, seconded across from the department. I think I’m at band 1.6. I don’t have my salary figures off the top of my head, but they’re actually in our annual report. I’m listed as one of the key management personnel in our annual report, which was tabled last week. You can find that information specifically.

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them on notice, please?

Senator Ayres: I think what the officer has said to you is that they’re in the annual report. If there’s anything in addition to the annual report, we are happy to provide that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors, at ARENA? Could you give me a breakdown of the numbers, please?

Mr Miller: Again, I might follow Senator Ayres’s lead and refer you to the annual report, which has this information for the last financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Numbers, breakdown into permanent employees, casual employees, contractors?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, maybe I could help you out. If you were to grab a copy of that and have a look through, you could potentially put any further questions on notice. There is a breakdown in their annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll do that. Future Made in Australia—Senator Ayres raised that. The No. 1 cost category in manufacturing today around the world is no longer labour, it’s electricity—with very few exceptions. China uses coal-fired power, sometimes including alcohol, but produces almost 10 times in terms of alcohol production. They have a production rate of $4.5 billion, heading for $5 billion, a year. They produce electricity and sell it, I am told, for 8c a kilowatt hour. Australia is at 25c a kilowatt hour, thanks largely to the transitioned components. Why is Labor so hostile towards manufacturing? Clearly, net zero destroys manufacturing. You also said that there’s no risk. That’s just a slogan. There’s huge risk when you’ve gone from being the cheapest electricity provider in the world to amongst the most expensive. I don’t know why you keep letting down Australian workers.

Senator Ayres: There’s a series of propositions in that we could—

Senator ROBERTS: They’re facts.

Senator Ayres: You assert that they’re facts.

Senator ROBERTS: Eight cents a kilowatt hour versus 25c a kilowatt hour.

Senator Ayres: As I said, you assert that they are facts. It may come as news to you, but the economy in the People’s Republic of China is structured a little bit differently to the Australian economy.

Senator ROBERTS: Eight cents a kilowatt hour—

Senator Ayres: There are some differences between our political and economic systems and the way that the government interacts with the electricity generation system and indeed the way the industry works is different. Our job here in Australia, if we’re acting in the national interest, is to secure Australia’s position. It is very clear that we have a series of forces acting upon our electricity system and our energy system more broadly. Firstly, most of our ageing coal-fired generators announced their closure under the previous government. There are many of them.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s cheaper to replace them new coal-fired power stations.

Senator Ayres: Many of them are coming to the end of their operational life. Some of them have been extended by state governments. The cheapest form of future energy for Australia is renewables and storage.

Senator ROBERTS: Only if you omit coal, hydrogen—

Senator Ayres: I did not interrupt you. I interrupted Senator Cadell earlier when he was being obnoxious, but I didn’t interrupt you.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean you want me to get obnoxious?

Senator Ayres: I don’t want to interrupt you. I don’t like interrupting people.

CHAIR: I’m going to interrupt you both and say that we are coming very close to the lunchbreak. I’ll ask you to wrap up. To be clear, Senator Roberts, you’ve had 11.5 minutes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That was my last question.

CHAIR: Do you feel like you’ve had a sufficient answer?

Senator ROBERTS: Very.

CHAIR: Excellent. I’m glad to hear it.

/by

Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact

,

The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.

I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?

Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?

Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?

Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.

Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?

Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?

Mr Binning: We have around 400.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?

CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.

Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.

Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?

Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.

Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?

Mr Binning: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.

Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.

Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?

Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—

Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.

Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.

Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.

Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?

Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?

Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.

CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.

Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.

Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s
generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—

Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?

Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.

Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.

Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Net Zero is Driving Unaffordable Grocery and Food Prices

, ,

Why are grocery prices still going up when we have better technology and more efficient farms than ever before?

The answer is that the cost of energy is making your grocery bills more expensive. Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton are equally committed to making electricity more expensive and increasing the price of food.

One Nation is the only party that will end net-zero policies to return cheap power and cheaper groceries to Australians.

Transcript

Yesterday, Richard Forbes of Independent Food Distributors Australia told the Australian newspaper: 

As far as I am concerned, the government’s energy policy has and continues to increase the price of food. 

Employers supplying food to major supermarkets and thousands of cafes, restaurants and pubs around the country have launched a revolt against the government’s energy policies, urging more gas and coal-fired power to bring down electricity prices. 

The managing director of Western Australia’s largest independent food distributor said his company’s electricity bill had doubled in the past three years. This energy policy driving up food prices is called net zero. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton are completely committed to the net zero policies that are driving up the price of your groceries. As part of that net zero policy, coal and gas generators are told to turn off completely whenever wind and solar decide to turn on, which is unpredictable. 

The problem is coal-fired power stations are what’s called base-load power; they’re designed to run constantly, not to flick on and off like they’re being forced to now. That abuse leads to higher maintenance costs and, in the worst case, power stations failing, blowing up. Even with this unsustainable switching-on-and-off situation, the coal burnt in a coal-fired power station costs just $21 a megawatt hour. This financial year, solar and wind capital South Australia’s average power price has been $200 a megawatt hour, a bit under 10 times higher than a coal station’s fuel costs. 

Instead of making coal stations flick on and off completely, run them continuously to provide base-load power, and electricity will instantly get cheaper and more reliable. Wind and solar can top up the rest—when they work—and households can keep using their own solar power—simple. Only One Nation will bring down power prices down and grocery bills to put more money in your pocket. 

/3 Comments/by

Labor Pressed on Cost of Renewables Plan

,

Assistant Trade Minister Tim Ayres has been caught in a heated stoush with Sky News host Laura Jayes over the ongoing national energy debate.

Despite having been in power for the past three years, the Albanese government refuses to discuss its renewable energy plans.

Instead the government is insistent on just tackling Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal, running a “scare campaign” against the proven clean source of power.

Minister Ayres repeatedly refused to discuss the cost of the Albanese government’s energy plans during an interview with Sky News on Monday. Asked by Laura Jayes if he could tell voters the total system costs of Labor’s energy plans, Minister Ayres did not give an answer. “I’m very glad you raised it. You don’t make electricity prices and energy prices lower for Australian industry and households by making them higher,” Minister Ayres said.

Laura pressed Minister Ayres on the fact his government had failed to bring down energy prices by $275 per year as promised at the last election – “Here we are three years later, and you still can’t have any upfront conversation with any minister in your government about why that has happened,” she said. Rather than respond to the criticism or discuss any of the government’s energy plans heading into the upcoming election, Minister Ayres changed the subject. “Peter Dutton’s nuclear reactor plan will make electricity $1,200 more expensive from day one,” he said.

The @SkyNewsAust host said it was “pretty telling” that when she attempted to discuss Labor’s energy plans, all Mr Ayres wanted to do was talk about the opposition. “This is what really annoys people though,” she said. “That (voters are) told that the other guys – who haven’t been in power for three years – it’s all their fault and you’re not willing to take any responsibility.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has still failed to address the fact his government failed to deliver on its promise to reduce power bills by $275.

While he has blamed international pressures, such as the Ukraine War, the election promise was repeated even after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

Mr Ayres told Laura Jayes to “focus on the facts” after she raised the $275 promise. “I am focussed on the facts. Where’s the $275?” she responded. But the Labor minister again pivoted back to the opposition. “Every day that we’re about to have a hot day. Peter Dutton and poor old Angus Taylor and Ted O’Brien … are out there predicting that the power is going to go off,” he said. “And it doesn’t go off.”

The NSW government was forced to ask residents to reduce their power usage during a mild heatwave in November 2024.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) struggled to avoid blackouts and requested factories shut down to reduce power demands.

AEMO was forced to issue a “lack of reserve” notice due to insufficient power supply, exacerbated by breakdowns in several coal-fired plants.

Minister Ayres claimed the blackouts were “inevitably” because of storm damage or coal plant failures but not because of renewables.

During the recent heatwave, renewables were unable to back up the coal-fired plant breakdowns because solar production came off at 3 pm when people return home to use energy at home.

/3 Comments/by

Change Begins with Us and Together, We Can Achieve the Extraordinary

,

An Evening of Dinner and Conversation! I’m joining Graham Healy and Dr William Bay for this event and I’d love for you to join us!

Just a heads-up: I’m not hosting this event. To RSVP, please use the external link to the Rise Up Australia Brisbane branch website: https://senroberts.com/4aG7L75

📅 Date: Sunday, 16 February

🕒 Time: 4:30 pm to 8:30 pm

📍 Location: Yum Cha Cuisine, Indooroopilly Shopping Centre, Shop MM5, 3A Station Rd, Indooroopilly QLD

/by

Energy Reality: 81% Coal and Gas Reliance

,

I’ve got a very simple goal – make it as cheap as possible to turn the lights on. Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese say we should comply with the Paris Agreement instead.

You can only trust One Nation to put Australia and your power bills first.

/by