Consumer group zaps power hike

A CONSUMER lobby group is calling foul on “misleading” power consumption figures it says are painting an unrealistic picture of the extent of looming energy price hikes.

Modelling done by the Climate Change Authority predicts power bills would go up $400 a year if an emissions trading scheme similar to what has been proposed by Labor was put in place.

A CONSUMER lobby group is calling foul on “misleading” power consumption figures it says are painting an unrealistic picture of the extent of looming energy price hikes.

Queensland Electricity Users Network co-ordinator Jennifer Brownie will challenge average household power consumption figures used by the Queensland Competition Authority to calculate how much extra Queenslanders will pay for their power each July.

She will question the accuracy of the figures in the group’s submission to the Finkel Review into the national energy market.

The Queensland Competition Authority on Friday released its draft decision on 2017-18 price rises for regional Queenslanders, with the average householder to pay $25 more a year for power – a 1.7 per cent jump – taking the average bill to $1515 from July.

Ms Brownie said increases for most would be much higher – it was based on average consumption figures of 4173kW/h a year, but most average households would consume closer to 7000kw/h a year.

“They are misleading consumption figures and therefore they mislead energy policy.”

EARLIER

FAMILY electricity bills would go up $400 a year if an emissions trading scheme similar to what has been proposed by Labor was put in place, according to government modelling.

It shows an emissions intensity scheme (EIS) would cost business $91 billion and residents $36.5 billion between 2020 and 2030. Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said it would be “a huge hit”.

But the modelling is at odds with separate Australian Energy Market Commission figures which suggest an EIS could save households and businesses $15 billion in power bills over a decade, or $216 per household a year.

The modelling was undertaken for the Climate Change Authority on the presumption of a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030 compared against existing government policies remaining in place.

A breakdown showed power bills would be up an extra $400 a year on average, about $7.70 a week, for a four-person family at Bracken Ridge, without pool, solar or gas.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten told the Bloomberg New Energy Finance summit this week Labor was “not walking away” from a 50 per cent renewable energy target (RET), saying it would have a better outcome for electricity prices and the environment.

Mr Frydenberg said a 50 per cent RET would hurt families.

“After the disaster of Labor’s carbon tax, Australian families cannot afford Bill Shorten’s latest electricity experiment,” he said.

“Through a series of reforms ... the Turnbull Government is committed to ensuring affordable electricity while maintaining the stability of the grid as we transition to a lower emissions future.”

During his speech to the Bloomberg summit, Mr Shorten said ruling out an emissions intensity scheme meant power bills would rise by $15 billion, based on the AECM modelling.

“The CSIRO and Australian Energy Networks Australia separately estimated that an EIS could save households $216 per year on power bills, on average,” he said. “Every investor and energy market player knows emissions trading in some form is inevitable — in fact, it is necessary.”

Originally published as Consumer group zaps power hike