There is only so much that individuals can do. As energy prices keep climbing, in many households you will find a parent patrolling to check lights and appliances are turned off. Some poorer households are resorting to more creative means.
At the Brotherhood of St Laurence we’ve been collecting stories, including that of “Sarah” – a single mum of two teenagers who, this past winter, went to bed much earlier than she felt like so she could turn off her heater in a bid to cut electricity bills.
The cold, hard truth is that no matter Sarah’s effort, her bills were likely to keep rising. Electricity bills are being forced up by rising peak demand, and a regulatory system that provides incentives for building more, not less, expensive infrastructure. Individual action, however creative, isn’t enough to stem the problem.
On Friday, the Council of Australian Governments stepped in and agreed to a new package of energy market reforms. While households like Sarah’s will benefit, realising savings of A$250 per year suggested by Prime Minister Gillard will be challenging. By striking an agreement, however, the PM and premiers have given impetus to a significant process of energy market reform that will, at the very least, put downward pressure on prices.
The conundrum all consumers face is that billions of dollars are spent by energy networks on infrastructure — generation, poles and wires – that is only needed during these peak demand periods. On hot days, when heavy industry continues to operate and those who have air-conditioners use them, the energy system is pushed to the limit.
Rising peak demand isn’t the only problem. The more electricity networks build, the more they are paid. They have an incentive to build more infrastructure than is needed, leading to higher energy prices. In some states reliability standards have also been increased, forcing electricity networks to spend even more on infrastructure.
COAG’s agreement includes action in five areas, including strengthening the role of consumers in energy regulation and increasing the Australian Energy Regulator budget by A$23 million over five years. The plan also tackles over-investment in energy networks and seeks to provide consumers with greater choice as well as addressing rising peak demand.
In the freshest initiative, COAG committed to introducing a Consumer Challenge Panel; experts providing a consumer perspective in regulatory determinations. Experience from the UK suggests there is value establishing such a body. Most consumer organisations will also be pleased that COAG endorsed the formation of a new national consumer advocacy body.
The reforms with the greatest direct impact on consumers, however, aim to give more choice to consumers through flexible energy prices, smart meters, in home displays and time of use pricing. This could lead to Sarah choosing time-of-use pricing to reduce her electricity bills if she is able to keep her electricity use down at peak times.
Time varying pricing simply involves consumers paying more for their electricity use at times of peak demand. This should reduce consumption at peak times, and reduce the need to build new infrastructure. States agreed to report back to COAG next year about introducing time varying pricing by July 2014. It will be opt-in for small users.
Low income households spend a significantly higher proportion of their weekly expenditure on energy than well-off households. Before this pricing change is introduced, it is essential to ensure they won’t be disadvantaged. The Federal Government should convene a series of forums with consumer and welfare organisations next year to address potential vulnerabilities.
Missing from the COAG agenda, however, were some important areas for reform. When the Brotherhood of St Laurence recently allied with the Australian Industry Group, Choice, and the Energy Efficiency Council to propose a Plan for Affordable Energy. We identified the need to improve energy efficiency programs, which could reduce individuals' household expenditure and system wide energy.
While such programs do not directly target peak demand, they do reduce overall demand and need for further generation and network infrastructure. More also needs to be done to provide incentives to the networks to be efficient rather than to spend more money on capital investment.
It remains to be seen if COAG’s package can come close to the headline grabbing saving of A$250 per year on energy bills. However, by putting their differences aside, and endorsing a package of energy reforms, the Prime Minister and premiers have given real impetus to energy market reform. It will, at the very least, put downward pressure on rising energy prices.
Through the coming year, further work is essential to ensure the reforms can be equitable for all households, particularly those on lower incomes, who stand to benefit most from lower electricity prices.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Isn't one of the biggest problems facing many low income individuals and families that they tend to live in rented accommodation and there is a clasic split incentive problem that discourages landlords to improve the energy eficiency of premises (e.g. through decent insulation) or means that they will increase rent when they do and drive lower income tenants away.
You can do all you like to reduce energy usage and only operate efficient appliances but, if the building you're living in is badly insulated, it's almost impossible to avoid higher heating/cooling bills. And it's not just the cost: no matter how good your intentions may be, you'll also unavoidably add to emissions problems. Surely a lose-lose if ever there was one.
Any thoughts on the most effective way to fix this little conundrum - a solution that won't be rorted by landlords or merely have the cost passed onto already strapped individuals?
Damian Sullivan
Honorary Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne
Yes, it's a big problem. There have been a number of attempts to address the issue including through voluntary projects such as Just Change and Green Renters. Mandatory disclosure of residential properties is likely to be a step in the right direction and provide a basis to introduce energy efficiency standards for private rental properties. At this stage, however, mandatory disclosure for residential rental properties appears to be stalled. Others have argued for increased use of tax incentives.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
What you need to do is to charge connection fees based on peak demand. That way the people who create the demand for peak power pay for the required infrastructure.
And you wouldn't need smart meters to do it - just circuit breakers.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Thanks Damian.
I also strongly suspect that bribing landlords ('tax incentives') may be the only way to go, though even then I still fear many would go on to charge a rental premium for a more energy efficient property, even if the improvements were paid for by taxpayers. Maybe we just have to live with this...
Robin Bell
Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle
Downward pressure on prices?
The cost of the smartmeter is passed on to the consumer at a recurring cost of about $70 per annum. A rise in price at first instance.
Those with the lest means also usually have the least flexibility in their working hours and electricity use. Offerring more expensive electricity in peak and shoulder times will force low income earners to push more of their personal activities into the 10pm to 7am, further marginalising their place in society.
The only real impetus to energy market reform from the Prime Ministers cynical attempt to buy votes without a handout, is that electricity consumers will pay much more for electricity. This thoughless policy is right up there with the disasterous solar panel subsidies. Both initiatives will result in the poor subsidising the price of electricity for the rich.
Damian Sullivan
Honorary Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne
The outcomes of time variant pricing for different consumers will depend on a number of factors including the timing of peak / shoulder / off peak, the differential in prices between the different periods and the usage patterns of the homes. If the daily rate is set relatively low, many households who are home during the day are likely to benefit from the shift. Larger low income households, with school aged children are likely to be in a more challenging position. Hence the importance of opt-in…
Read moredavid leitch
research analyst
time of use meters will do more to benefit low income earners in the long run. The people that get a free ride at the moment are those that use air conditioning and swimming pool pumps at peak times but don't pay extra. By charging higher prices at peak (NSW its current $0.5 KWh at peak $0.11 KWh off peak) consumption will be shifted into off peak and shoulder periods.
The vast majority of NZ consumers are already on time of use meters.
The ongoing penetration of solar (now up to 9% of households) particularly behind the meter solar (all the marginal installation) will also shift consumption into should periods (the middle of the day)
Watch it happen.
david leitch
research analyst
In addition to comments below, its my opinion that if there was a more formal market to discover the lowest price consumers, particularly business, would accept to be turned off during peak we would likely find that to be the cheapest marginal form of spreading the peak.
There are some consumers who would take a low price to be turned off, but the system has no way of knowing who they are.
John Newlands
tree changer
I think if those presumed frail are exempted from TOU in heatwaves and cold snaps it will turn into a rort like medical marijuana in the US. I note cyclone prone areas have a survival room, usually the bathroom. Others (myself included) have a bunker. I wonder if it could become standard practice for every dwelling to have a thermal comfort room that takes just 0.5 kw to keep warm or cool.
That room would be smallish, draught tight and well insulated. Carbon cops would visit every owner-occupant…
Read moreEwan Briggs
Sustainability Consultant
How much do we think that people are going to reduce their demand on those really hot days towards the end of a heatwave when the network is really struggling? My guess is that people will happily pay the additional cost of running their aircon at peak time to get their (poorly designed and insulated) house back down to comfortable temperatures. This means we'd still need the infrastructure.
For networks to not build the additional infrastructure they'd have to be very confident that consumers will respond to the higher prices when it really matters.
For this reason I think the most effective and reliable way to solve the peak demand infrastructure driven investment is by having distributed storage and generation - that way consumers can continue to consume and networks can reliably continue with their current infrastructure.
Damian Sullivan
Honorary Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne
Ewan, There certainly is alot more we can do in improving housing & appliance efficiency in old and new home. I would agree that distributed storage and generation has a role to play. The other options around price, load control, will also make a difference.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
Good Article, I find it hard to feel sorry for people who cannot afford electricity, a single mum cant afford power....that sucks but we cant afford to burn anymore fossil fuels. People have known for over 20years now that we are going to run into these problems, if they have ignored this and are now in a situation where they cannot provide for their kids then they are irresponsible parents.
Dave Smith
Energy Consultant
Damian,
My guess would be that "Sarah" does not have an air-conditioner. If that is correct, and if she also lives in a State that is summer-peaking (all States except Tasmania), she is currently subsidising consumers with air-conditioners.
The tariff on the heater that is sending her to bed early is probably around 30c/kWh. The true cost-of-supply is probably around 10c/kWh.
Damian Sullivan
Honorary Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne
Dave, I'm not sure of whether Sarah has an air-con or not, but your point still stands. The issue of cross subsidies for air conditioners during peak periods is a significant one that needs to be addressed, TOU is one option, others include direct load control of air con. and pool filters during peak time.
Mark O'Connor
Author
This is a well-meaning article, but it perpetrates dangerous myths. For instance it claims:
"The conundrum all consumers face is that billions of dollars are spent by energy networks on infrastructure — generation, poles and wires – that is only needed during these peak demand periods."
In fact, far the greatest cost is the extra poles and wires (and sub-stations) for new houses and for vast new suburbs. These are not "only needed during...peak demand"; they are needed every day. The underlying…
Read moreKym Lennox
logged in via LinkedIn
If only it was this simple. The majority of the cost is in the distribution - the last mile of the network and even in a static population, land use patterns change. An inner-city industrial area converts to medium or even high density residential, a residential area of an older demographic shifts to having young families. These changes impact the capacity requirements of the distribution network and drive infrastructure investment. Of course, if the population is genuinely static then some areas…
Read moreDamian Sullivan
Honorary Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne
Population growth in Australia gets blamed for alot of things. In relation to peak demand, when population increases there are also more consumers to pay for energy infrastructure (potentially not enough to cover the costs for all the infrastructure in growth areas, or even the energy infrastructure in growth areas. However, this may reflect more on the location of the population growth - greenfield - than the actual growth).
On the other hand when a/c use increases, even if population stays the same, the need for more infrastructure increases without any more consumers to cover the cost. A/c uses pay but nowhere near the cost. As said previously tou/pricing isn't the only option, there are others worth exploring.
David Bennett
Architect
It great that electricity prices have taken the spotlight at the moment. This is a spectacular opportunity to get the settings right - amazing how awareness of use is shifting.
The discussions around pricing signals are often centered on PENALISING (ie reducing) demand at peak times. This is of course valuable, though as previously commented i also question if it would shape behaviour on the hottest of days very much at all.
If renewable GENERATION was rewarded at peak times, with absolutely…
Read more