Like most innovations, it sounded like a good idea at the time. Induce householders to pay big money to install solar power generation. Buy back any extra to supplement the state power grid and reduce the need for costly new power stations - and let this income recompense the owners for their outlay.
The mistake was to offer sixty cents a kilowat hour for that power, compounded when the scheme proved so popular that 110,000 households took the plunge. If left uncorrected, this will cost every other household in the state a hike of $ 170 a year in their power bills.
Barry O'Farrel wants to cut that 60 c kwh back to 40 c - and any new people wanting to access the scheme will be offered a mere 20 c kwh. The sticking point is that this will happen by way of retrospective legislation.
To most people - a deal is a deal is a deal. They bought those solar panels on the basis of a promise by the former state government - and now the new government wants to move the goal posts.
Of all people, Fred Nile seems to have come up with a better - and certainly a fairer compromise. Split the difference. The old deal called for 60 c kwh but with a termination date of 2016. By all means drop that input price to 40 c - but extend the terminal date to compensate for the rate drop.
That is a compromise that would be hard to argue against. It would spread the load and stop a rate hike affecting other users, but at the same time allow solar panel owners to recoup their investment - but simply delay completion over a longer time period.
Ans when push comes to shove - that is what should make everyone happy !
No comments:
Post a Comment