Victorian Solar Minimum Feed in Tariff Slash Proposal

CommuterPolluter on 10/01/2025 - 16:33
Last edited 10/01/2025 - 17:48 by 1 other user

The Essential Services Commission has just today proposed a massive cut in the flat rate solar feed in tariff for the 2025-26 year. The current minimum flat rate tariff is 3.3 ¢ per kWh. The proposed minimum flat rate tariff is 0.04 ¢ per kWh.

For those with smaller energy usage this essentially eliminates reduces the profitability/economic justification of household solar (or at least increases the payback period significantly). Clearly they are signally they don’t need more solar coming online for the time being, despite the Vic Government as of December still offering some juicy rebates and interest free loans on household solar.

Home & Garden Feed in Tariff Solar Energy System

Comments

  • CommuterPolluter on 10/01/2025 - 16:35
    +16

    As an exporter of solar energy myself it’s disappointing but I think ultimately reasonable. It was unfair to other households to be forced to subsidise low-value solar exports.

    • Euphemistic on 10/01/2025 - 21:06
      +19

      How is 3.3c/kwh unfair to other households? Electric companies are charging them over 50c/kwh. Its not subsidised like it was in the early days of solar incentives. if anything, youre being ripped off because the power companies are making bank off your panels.

      • freefall101 on 10/01/2025 - 22:11
        +22

        Power generators are being paid negative amounts in the middle of the day and having to restrict their output, but instead of retailers being able to buy exclusively from them, they have to pay home users who are exporting power instead. It pushes up the overall wholesale price of power.

        If anyone is paying 50c/kwh in the middle of the day, they should probably review their plan as well.

        • Euphemistic on 10/01/2025 - 22:57

          These are problems of a half developed renewables grid. Cant turn 'base load' power off, too much solar. But we havent got smart (enough) meters or power plans to cope with free power whole the sun shines.

            • Euphemistic on 11/01/2025 - 19:28
              +2

              @HeWhoKnows: Havent been any blackouts yet AFAIK.

              • HeWhoKnows on 11/01/2025 - 19:30
                -5

                @Euphemistic: No, just in South Australia and Victoria.
                But that wasnt the point I was making

                • Euphemistic on 11/01/2025 - 19:32
                  +8

                  @HeWhoKnows: None of the points you were trying to make were worth responding to.

                  Renewables are the cheapest form of electricity. production

                • SupeNintendoChalmers on 12/01/2025 - 16:28
                  +4

                  @HeWhoKnows: I live in Victoria. Have not heard of any mass wave blackouts.

                  Thats ok though, my solar + batteries ensures I have lights and basic essentials online in case of a blackout.

            • SupeNintendoChalmers on 12/01/2025 - 16:27
              +11

              @HeWhoKnows:

              I wont go into all the details

              of course you wont.

            • siresteelhell on 13/01/2025 - 04:06

              @HeWhoKnows: shakes head at the chooks with their heads in the sand giving you negs

        • SlickMick on 11/01/2025 - 19:57

          So what is the highest cost that providers are paying for power? 3.3c? It seems to me that they're running a terribly inefficient business if they aren't making super profits from the retail price.

          • freefall101 on 11/01/2025 - 21:06
            +1

            @SlickMick: What does the highest cost have to do with anything?

            That said, the highest cost they're paying is $15 per kw/h. Which is why retail power prices are high, when the sun goes down and people are stilling running their aircons flat out, the small number of coal and gas providers can decide to do maintenance to spike the power price (which means all sellers get the highest price). And the retailers need to recapture that cost during low cost hours.

            Having to pay 3.3c/kwh instead of being able to get it for more boosts the costs, simple as that.

            • SlickMick on 11/01/2025 - 22:00

              @freefall101: You seriously don't think that is relevant? If that's true, it seems to me we're heading for a revolution in this industry, coz I don't see that's a sustainable price.

              • freefall101 on 11/01/2025 - 23:46

                @SlickMick: It's not relevant to retailers having to pay people exporting to the grid more than they pay coal/wind/solar wholesalers. They set their prices with the bank they make during the middle of the day in mind, while also accounting for the massive losses they occasionally make when the grid is saturated. It benefits solar owners at the expense of everyone else. For retailers it's why they do EV plans with free charging at specific hours, even if people are paying peak pricing the retailers probably lose money.

                Not sure which bit isn't sustainable, the wholesale price gets up to $15/kwh in small peaks, which encourages more people to put in more wind/batteries to cash in on that. It's why the only hold up to more installs is regulatory and the whinging NIMBYs, there's plenty of people wanting to put in turbines and the government wants to churn out renewable energy zones so we can produce as much cheap energy as people want.

        • paulojr on 12/01/2025 - 21:07

          I think what we're saying is the entire concept of not paying what it costs to produce is illogical and example of poor management.

          if producer gets negative amounts to produce at the wrong time that is not logical either, minimum feed in tariff should be no less than the cost to consume the power, otherwise no point in consumers helping the government establish a solar network.

          The behaviour now being encouraged is deployment battery technology with all its impact on the environment and reliability concerns that come with it plus cost, or shift away from solar with those of us that were suckers to invest now not getting any payment for the investment.

          Not great..

          • Tyrx on 14/01/2025 - 19:27

            @paulojr: Wholesale suppliers already exist, but the problem with them is that people simply can't manage to adjust their electricity usage in accordance with market rates. You end up with granny being hit with hundreds of dollars for their energy usage in a single night because she's too stupid unable to make the adjustment.

            The short term solution here is for all levels of government to abolish residential solar subsidies and remove regulation which dictates minimum feed-in tariff rates. The retailers that don't use wholesale rates basically reduce the volatility of market pricing by having flat(er) rates similar to the insurance industry, so that should somewhat stem the bleeding until we get rational national energy policy.

      • HeWhoKnows on 11/01/2025 - 19:12

        More like charging round 35c/Kwh
        But still compared with 3.3c ????

        • Alzori on 12/01/2025 - 12:38
          +1

          Off peak prices are around 21c (if you're on a peak/off peak plan) and network fees are around 17c, so retailers would be paying about 20c for power in total before selling it to you, if it was generated by solar. Not such a huge rort really.

      • sajidmib on 13/01/2025 - 16:29
        +2

        Every Organistaion in australia makes bank, we have democratic system that is being sold to us but at what cost, modern slavery ( modern problems needs modern solutions). Media controls our mind to start hating particular race, religion etc etc. Normalize genocide in the name of National Security. All these will unravel soon that we have been taken for a ride.

      • wetsandwich on 13/01/2025 - 16:30

        The actual market rate of electricity during the day is negative a lot of the time, so even though us retail customers still pay through the nose, they're losing money by paying you for power that is actually 'supposed' to be free at that time.

      • Gros21 on 23/01/2025 - 10:21

        Yea and that power just magicly teleports to the next house.

        They are not making bank during the day they are loosing money during the day.

        • Euphemistic on 23/01/2025 - 10:31

          Sure, it still costs money to transmit around the place, but a big cost for power is coal generation. They are losing money because the coal plants arent required for output, but they still need to keep running. If we had not had successive governments that stuck their head in the sand about renewables and kept subsidising coal, we'd be far better off now.

    • Zondor on 13/01/2025 - 15:41

      It's not reasonable given how much they charge you to pull a KWH out. Energy during the day should be peanuts even if it makes it more expensive during the evening.

  • Bruceflix on 10/01/2025 - 16:39

    This is very much reality in SA now

    • CommuterPolluter on 10/01/2025 - 16:41

      If you don’t mind my asking, if you have solar, what’s your average feed in tariff?

      • Bruceflix on 10/01/2025 - 16:42
        +2

        I'm currently on 8c FiT but most plans range from 0 - 3c

      • GordonD on 10/01/2025 - 17:05
        +5

        My FiT is 48c. Four more years to go.

      • JIMB0 on 10/01/2025 - 21:14

        12c/kwh

      • mikekiwimike on 11/01/2025 - 08:08
        +1

        We are on 8 cents in SA as well, waiting for the change to happen where we will get basically zero.

      • Nugs on 13/01/2025 - 06:40

        AGL, haven't had a bill since changing to this plan to see how the 'averaging' is calculated.

        Webpage blurb;
        Get a 10c/kWh solar feed-in tariff for the first 10kWh of your daily export (averaged across the relevant billing period). For any export after that, you’ll get 4c/kWh. This tariff can change from time to time with five business days' written notice to you. Your inverter must not be over 10kW, and you must not be receiving a feed-in tariff under a government scheme
        .

        • Nugs on 04/02/2025 - 10:44

          got quarterly bill.
          10c for 'first' 10kWh per day feed in is based on total feed in for the period (so capped at 900kWh for 90days)
          effectively pays for the supply cost
          .

      • Zondor on 13/01/2025 - 15:42

        8c for first 10KW with Lumo and 5c after.

        SA has boatloads of solar though and even has days we run 100% off it during the day.

      • Jaspa7 on 14/01/2025 - 10:06

        with origin here:
        Solar Boost is 10c/kWh for first 14kWh (then something like sub 5c)
        This sounds alright, but they make it back with:

        Daily Supply
        107.46 ¢/day

        Usage Charges
        Peak 55.82 ¢/kWh
        Off-peak 32.63 ¢/kWh
        Shoulder 27.25 ¢/kWh

        For someone like myself who watches the graphs like a hawk and adjust usage accordingly (EV charging mainly) - not too bad.
        For someone who just pays whatever the bill ends up being - probably not great

    • Lastchancetosee on 11/01/2025 - 07:35

      My fit is 5c in SA

  • c64 on 10/01/2025 - 16:55
    +12

    just wait until they start charging you to feed in

    • CommuterPolluter on 10/01/2025 - 17:06
      +2

      That would really suck for people whose inverters don’t have export control.

      • DogGunn on 10/01/2025 - 17:14

        You would be able to do it at the meter.

        • Nugs on 12/01/2025 - 10:37

          if you're at home? or remotely?
          .

    • BiotBargin on 10/01/2025 - 23:08

      to some extent they do, they charger you $80 to reconfigure you meter to feed in … and they dont even ask.

  • LVlahov on 10/01/2025 - 17:09
    +10

    It really makes me believe one of two things should be happening:

    1. We should be cutting down on the promotion of solar as being able to fill more of our energy needs (because any additional solar simply does not provide energy when we need it).
      or
    2. Much more should be invested now, or really should have been invested over the last 4 years into forms of solar capture and storage, such as pumped hydro.

    If we had input better means of storing energy into the system then there would be no need for minuscule rates on solar export as we'd be desiring more input from solar systems at any time of the day. The low rates speak to a bungled effort.

    • AngoraFish on 10/01/2025 - 17:48
      +6

      We're talking rooftop solar. Any individual should still get significant benefits from not having to buy power when the sun is out. Feed in tariffs have been declining for years. Anyone who bought a system in the last 4-5 years based on feed in tariffs had plenty of warning not to do that.

      Rooftop solar remains one of the best bangs for buck in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and has many other benefits for the network beyond just adding to daytime supply, such as reducing the demand for transmission infrastructure.

      There has indeed been a bungled effort in taking advantage of solar opportunities. We very recently had nearly a decade of COALition government actively undermining renewable power at every possible opportunity, and only a couple of years to turn around that situation. There are, however, multiple solutions currently being rolled out, such as community batteries, however it is not possible to make essential infrastructure appear overnight.

      • Protractor on 10/01/2025 - 17:53
        +4

        If only we could take out a class action for the irreversible damage the LNP has forced on this country via climate change denial and obfuscation. How they can look their kids and grandkids in the eyes with any integrity is really impressive character acting.

        • LVlahov on 10/01/2025 - 20:40
          -7

          There has been no irreversible damage done to the country. You both engage in hyperbole from a position of partisanship. I mean "COALition" really.

          And by the way we've had a Labor government federally for the last 3 plus years, and Labor governments in most states for the last several.
          Seems like - if you think there is a problem - Labor has been a real part of it themselves.

          And there we can include a trade deal with India that flooded Australia with 1 million additional migrants (temporary plus permanent) since they came to power which.. guess what.. all need housing, transport and so on. Where do you think the energy for that comes from hmm? What would Australia's emissions been with 1 million less people hmm?

          Perhaps there is a glaring obvious way to help the environment the left side of politics overlooks hmm? (As do neoliberal politicians of all stripes of course).

          • Protractor on 10/01/2025 - 21:03
            -3

            @LVlahov: "Labor has been a real part of it themselves".

            I agree. I also get your hint that there's too many humans.Absolute core of every problem we have.
            But I've done my bit.

            The rest is just typical denial of what's obvious, in front of you and in every level of empirical and other form of evidence. Time to hide you now, bye bye denioman.

          • AngoraFish on 10/01/2025 - 21:32
            +15

            @LVlahov: The Australian federal government has maximum three year terms. The last federal election was held 21 May 2022, which is 2 years, 7 months and 19 days ago, which by the way is not "3 plus years".

            People require energy to house regardless of where they live. The game is about reducing carbon emissions globally, not just Australia's specifically.

            You roll your eyes about "COALition", as if the federal treasurer at the time and future leader of the COALition didn't bring a lump of coal into parliament in 2017 precisely in order to mock parties demanding action on climate change.

            The glaringly obvious way to help the environment is to not voraciously oppose anything that actually helps the environment as if helping the environment is some kind of woke, leftist plot.

          • try2bhelpful on 11/01/2025 - 01:05
            +7

            @LVlahov: How do you expect them to fix the power issues in three years? Look at who has been in government for the majority of the last 30 years. If we’d had a comprehensive power policy in the last ten years we might be a long way down the storage for renewables by now. I suspect China will go full speed ahead with storage development now they now America is vacating the field. Batteries will get more efficient and the prices will drop. We are in the transition period at the moment. Whatever you think about “partisanship” the LNP has certainly not been providing us with the most cost effective power options. Their current nuclear plan relies on people using a fraction of the power the ALP is talking about. This will cripple future industry and our migration from gas to electric.

            The migrant uptick was always going to happen no matter what party came in because we took almost nobody for the Covid years. At the moment the ALP are looking at schemes to reduce migrants but the LNP refuses to support them. The other issue is we have shortages in certain work areas which is why the unemployment levels aren’t increasing even with the migrants.

            I don’t think the ALP are perfect but they certainly offer the better options. Not partisanship just fact. The LNP is obsessed with identity politics and culture wars. What is the LNP policies on Cost of Living, given the keep saying it is the most important thing? Instead Dutton says he won’t stand in front of flags.

        • Alzori on 12/01/2025 - 12:42

          We could do that, or, or, hear me out - we lock in another 30 years of coal/gas investment and stop all progress on renewables investment in its tracks! Good plan, no?

      • LVlahov on 10/01/2025 - 20:39
        +5

        "as reducing the demand for transmission infrastructure"

        It does not do this, in fact quite the reverse. The transition infrastructure has to be upgraded to deal with the power surges from solar (when for instance the sun peaks out from the clouds) while the total capacity required in the system remains the same.. i.e. to deal with peak power usage when the sun isn't shining.

        • GordonD on 11/01/2025 - 08:12
          +1

          You beat me to saying this.

      • Hector on 11/01/2025 - 10:00

        Rooftop solar remains one of the best bangs for buck in reducing greenhouse gas emissions if you ignore the production and recycling/disposal cost of panels

        FTFY

        (Best bang for buck is LED lights/home insulation)

        • try2bhelpful on 11/01/2025 - 10:36

          People should look at their homes and see what passive improvements that can make. Insulated curtains, only heating/cooling a small area to live in during extreme temperatures, awnings, opening up at night to ventilate heat in Summer, blankets, warm clothing, etc. Reduce the requirement in power to begin with.

          However, we are now more comfortable in Summer because we are happy to run our air conditioner using the power from our solar panels.

          • Protractor on 12/01/2025 - 14:59

            @try2bhelpful: Ironically the more artificial cooling being used, the hotter the planet gets. Solar passive constructions is a no brainer. PPL not embracing it with a new builds, are also no brainers.

            • picklewizard on 12/01/2025 - 20:58

              @Protractor: @Protractor in the case of solar as @try2bhelpful is talking about, this isn't true… energy is always conserved

              • Protractor on 12/01/2025 - 21:17

                @picklewizard: OK let me phrase it differently. As the planet warms and humans proliferate, more and more AC units run more often to keep poorly designed hot box houses cooler and liveable. Until the majority of AC units, and other energy hungry appliances are powered by renewable the majority of the time, we are stuck with a 'grid' that is like a big MF furnace heating up the place even more. There's obviously other warming on top of that from all sorts of other stuff we do. We aint cooling down any time soon.If ever. Soon we'll be having serious convos about subterranean habitation.If we survive that long.

      • paulojr on 12/01/2025 - 21:13

        depends.. in an ideal world, or a perfect world, yes, but in reality failure with an inverter or panel, decision to actually maintain the panels as is often advised, any number of reasons can mean the maintenance of that investment means you won't get a real return on investment. Particularly concerning when the government changes the rules after you've spend money. Probably smarter to invest in better insulation or other things these days.

    • CommuterPolluter on 12/01/2025 - 21:21

      Honestly we don’t get a lot of benefits in terms of offset usage. However, we use around 2 kWh per person per day conservatively while the average Victorian household is using 12 kWh per day. I don’t understand how people are using so much energy.

      • Protractor on 12/01/2025 - 23:12

        You don't????????????
        Another maths equation. AC per house, in a 1st world scenario, amid specifically designed ovens ( inc black tiled roof and 30 metres of west facing windows in an un-insulated house) , and every known electronic/electric gadget known to man happily humming away 24/7. And the sound of moaning cost of living crisis like a siren in the background.
        It's like a National Lampoon movie.

    • greatlamp on 14/01/2025 - 18:03

      The problem will be solved when home batteries become cheap enough for mass adoption.

  • myk on 10/01/2025 - 18:14
    +12

    Honestly it does not matter. As soon as the feed in tariff drops beyond a certain point, we will all get batteries. Then the energy resellers will really have something to cry about.

    • Protractor on 10/01/2025 - 21:06
      +2

      And then the last plank is this.You'll have to have a license to produce electricity in a domestic environment with all the safety shit,insurance and annual inspections. If you fall behind your insurer will not cover you for claims. Pencil it in.

    • mikekiwimike on 11/01/2025 - 08:15
      +1

      And they would have been too late to do anything about it, bit like the dinosaurs (or Foxtel), I am waiting for that moment where the feed in tariffs become nothing and then I will go offered with my Chinese batteries - fingers crossed no fires lol.

    • Brick Tamland on 12/01/2025 - 14:32

      Thats a nice thought for us but realistically batteries are still way to expensive to just go out and buy because of a reduction equivalent to $10-$15 a month

    • megaclix on 13/01/2025 - 09:15
      +1

      I think households having batteries en masse is the next natural progression. Reduce the midday peak, and reduce the evening demand, while reducing the load on the infrastructure. To pay for this, daily supply charges will increase and kWh prices would be reduced.

      The grid would then still need to be designed to cope with outlier days, and if the grid generation is all renewable, then the grid scale solar systems would have the same issues as residential solar.

      • Ricktheroller on 13/01/2025 - 20:38
        +2

        I'd say V2H (vehicle to home), plugging an EV into your house and using its battery as the power supply. Huge in relative comparison to a standard household battery.

  • JimmyF on 10/01/2025 - 18:53
    +5

    The proposed minimum flat rate tariff is 0.04 ¢ per kWh.

    LOL, so I have to export 25 kwh to get a single cent!?

    Yeah not playing that game at all. They'll be getting nothing! So lucky for me, that my solar system has a zero export option, and I have a EV to soak up the excess solar during the day.

    • Lastchancetosee on 11/01/2025 - 07:39

      I'll look into this. Is it easy to do? I have an EV.

      • Alzori on 12/01/2025 - 12:46

        I don't have an EV, but from what I know you can usually set up charging schedules on them so they only charge during solar production. That, combined with setting your inverter to limit export power to zero, would inhibit any solar being exported into the grid and put as much excess as possible into your car.

        You'd need a power monitor installed and connected to your inverter though so it can tell how much power is being imported/exported at any given time.

        I don't really see the point in the second part though. As long as feed in tariffs aren't negative there's no harm in letting the excess go to someone else if you can't use it. Let's the grid operators have a better sense of how much solar excess is available on the network.

        Different story if feed in tariffs go negative though. When that happens, best to avoid any exports. Might need to setup a timed automation if it's a time based tariff… But that's getting more complex.

    • The Hawk on 11/01/2025 - 16:31

      Without a battery or EV to dump the power into it kinda makes you want to permanently set export to zero at those rates… or is that the point?

      It would be nice if the infrastructure people invested in community batteries… but clearly it’s not even worth it for them or it would already be being done.

      • try2bhelpful on 11/01/2025 - 17:08

        Our council has been talking to households about it.

        • Protractor on 12/01/2025 - 15:01
          -4

          The only reason local govts ever talk to residents is for another money sucking opportunity.There is always an ulterior motive for consultation by councils.Buyer beware

      • JimmyF on 11/01/2025 - 17:10
        +3

        Without a battery or EV to dump the power into it kinda makes you want to permanently set export to zero at those rates… or is that the point?

        Yes, that is the point for the moment, there is a glut of solar power in the grid during 10am and 3pm. The power price often goes negative if you are on wholesaler pricing as there is too much power in the grid. So, Yes they pay you to use power when this happens!

        That is the short term issue, the longer issue/problem is that in a few years time, when the snowy is up and running, it will suck up all this extra power and more for the pumped hydro setup, so they can create power at night time.

        But they'll shoot themselves in the foot, as they'll piss off everyone with 0.04c per kWh pricing, and those that can (like me), will set the system to zero export or install a home battery, rather than be ripped off. If I export 50 kWh, I'll get 2 cents!? Hardly worth it.

        So in the long run, I see there won't be as much excess power around as today.

        • danwylie on 13/01/2025 - 15:22

          Why wouldn't they just change the feed in tariff upwards to encourage people to export again? Just because FIT have been heading to zero doesn't mean they can't go the other way.

          • JimmyF on 13/01/2025 - 16:21

            @danwylie: Sure they could, but by then the damage is done. The same reason no one here doesn't shop at harvey norman anymore 😂

            • danwylie on 14/01/2025 - 16:34

              @JimmyF: Ha, I curse his name every time Aliexpress adds 10% GST to my order, but Harvey isn't offering free money like an increased FIT would

    • kaleidoscope on 12/01/2025 - 20:42

      They'll be getting nothing!

      Don’t think they need yours or any residential solar back into the grid so they can keep charging premium rates from everyone. There was a move to have community batteries installed so they use excess solar from during the day and supply it to the nearby residents but I have not seen this taking place.

      • JimmyF on 12/01/2025 - 20:53

        Don’t think they need yours or any residential solar back into the grid

        They want it for pumped hydro…..

  • Ocker on 10/01/2025 - 19:16
    +2

    "They'll be getting nothing" - that's exactly the message they want to get across.

    • JimmyF on 11/01/2025 - 08:22

      There is a big difference between them paying you nothing and you giving them nothing.

      The later means you get nothing and they get nothing compared to you getting nothing and them getting free power to sell.

      • bglen on 12/01/2025 - 09:21

        "Please don't throw me in the briar patch"

        Your retailer doesn't want your free electricity to sell. Your 'free' electricity costs them money. When you want to sell your electricity, there are coal generators willing to pay the retailer to take electricity. That's where the market is at the moment. The ESC sets the minimum FiT, not the retailer. Here's what they say in their draft 2025-26 determination:

        We have estimated the wholesale electricity costs for the flat minimum feed-in tariff to be
        negative 2.4 c/kWh (–2.4), which is 3.0 c/kWh lower than last year when the forecast was 0.64
        c/kWh. This reflects the lower daytime wholesale prices.

        It's a fallacy that retailers buy your electricity for 3c and sell it 25c (choose your own numbers). The retail price includes significant network charges paid to the DNSP and a heap of other small charges including GST. But most importantly it is an average for 365x24 - they still sell it to you for 25c at dinner time even if it costs them $16/kWh.

        If you don't want to pay 25c at lunch time because you think they are getting it for 3c or less, there are plans that are basically free at that time including Amber - but don't expect to get free power at 6pm when there is no glut of solar.

        • JimmyF on 12/01/2025 - 10:31
          -1

          Your retailer doesn't want your free electricity to sell. Your 'free' electricity costs them money

          I'm aware, see my comment above

          If you don't want to pay 25c at lunch time because you think they are getting it for 3c or less

          Not what I said, and the proposed changes are far less than 3c, it is 0.03c, as in 25 kWh = 1 cent.

          I said, I don't want to give away my excess for 'free', so I won't be.

          Also see my comment above for why this is bad, they'll piss people off and when they want that glut of excess solar for the pump hydro, it won't be there.

  • Ocker on 10/01/2025 - 19:18
    +1

    The next step will be to charge consumers to take excess generation at times when the wholesale price goes negative.

  • Iwantthebestprice on 10/01/2025 - 19:54
    +2

    Wait until you see the changes coming in 2025 when you start getting charged for excess solar exported to the grid during peak hours 2pm to 6pm. Then you can truly grab your pitchforks and rise up in anger.

    Already happening elsewhere, look at Europe, so was only a matter of time before Australia adopted this approach to excess solar.

    • Protractor on 10/01/2025 - 21:04

      Don't forget the off (excess) switch on peak times

  • Drakesy on 10/01/2025 - 23:12
    -1

    WA is sitting at 2.5c.

    This is a joke imho. Having to buy back that exact energy for 20c/kwh is ridiculous

    i export 10x my consumption and still have to pay a bill.

    • gromit on 12/01/2025 - 21:05
      +1

      and them paying you even 2.5c is a loss for them. They aren't winning on this deal.

      • Drakesy on 13/01/2025 - 01:06
        -2

        They resell it to the guy next door for 20c though?

        • gromit on 13/01/2025 - 09:29

          No they don't. They have capacity they have to maintain so they generate the power as well, effectively they lose money on it.

  • Ocker on 11/01/2025 - 08:36

    Even at zero feed-in benefit it is still not financially viable for us to install a battery to store excess generation.
    In 2024, our 6 kWh system exported 1,386 kWh into the grid, at 20c per kWh that earned $277.
    With a 10 kWh battery costing around $10,000 the payback period would be about 36 years - well beyond the life expectancy of the battery unit.
    If they start to charge for exported electricity then the numbers would change, but still not enough to justify a battery.

    • BigMoth on 11/01/2025 - 14:39

      Maybe Vic gov will redirect subsidies from solar panels to batteries?
      Players like Amber already "pay you" to consume power at off peak times (and charge higher at peak times). In the off peak hours, one could recharge the battery, use the battery during peak hours… and not even need solar panels?

      • Alzori on 12/01/2025 - 13:13

        It would be hard to make that work. There's a 17-18c gap between retail costs and retail feed in tariffs at any given time in the wholesale market due to network fees, so you only get arbitrage opportunities when there's a >18c swing in wholesale power prices.

        Also solar panels are much cheaper + more subsidised than batteries, so it doesn't make much sense economically to get all the infrastructure installed for a battery and not stick up the panels at the same time. The panels will pay themselves off very quick and simultaneously help pay off the battery quicker.

        • netjock on 13/01/2025 - 16:15
          +1

          A lot of people don't have hybrid battery ready inverters too. If they had one it is an easy plug and play job. That is what it looks like for Growatt and Sungrow.

          • Alzori on 13/01/2025 - 17:24

            @netjock: Yeah, just got solar installed last year, kinda kicking myself that I didn't get a hybrid inverter ready for a battery at the time. That said, we've got 3 strings of panels and I don't think there's many 3 string hybrid models around.

            • netjock on 13/01/2025 - 18:28

              @Alzori: I guess you got more than 5Kw inverter which is usually 2 strings.

              But are you single or 3 phase? 3 phase is definitely more expensive inverters and more limited options.

              • Alzori on 13/01/2025 - 19:08

                @netjock: Single phase, 6kW inverter, 7.6KW of panels. Just an awkward roof layout that means I have 6 south, 6 east, 4 west. Making the best of what's available!

    • greencomet on 12/01/2025 - 16:26
      -1

      I'll be getting an EV and using that as a daily drive/home battery once V2X is sorted here in Australia, it makes far more sense over having a standalone battery sitting at home.

    • brad1-8tsi on 13/01/2025 - 10:01
      +2

      @Ocker

      You aren't taking into account the offset in energy that you would be paying for if you didn't have rooftop solar.

      According to my "payback" spreadsheet for my $4900 5.4kW solar PV (installed late May 2023) and 27kW batteries $20650 (Dec 2024) the combined raw payback is 21 years.
      You then need to take into account various incentives such as government VPP reimbursement, retail VPP sign-on bonus, monthly VPP rental payment, using "smart" wholesale energy providers, VPP churning, etc.

      Being pro-active with these things should bring the payback below 10 years, possibly around 7 years.

      I bought batteries because I'd had a good year financially and if the payback isn't what I think it will be there is no harm done. I like an experiment.

      Also, AEMO is predicting energy shortages in NSW and likely power cuts so the home backup is quite attractive.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join