Government hit on solar tariff plan

Age
Tuesday 17/3/2009 Page: 4

UNIONS have accused the State Government of forfeiting thousands of new jobs and billions of investment dollars by going soft on solar energy. In a letter to the Premier, Trades Hall secretary Brian Boyd said a broader and more generous solar subsidy scheme had the potential to create $2.5 billion in solar investment and 2500 jobs.

"(Trades Hall) is disappointed that the Victorian Government is not implementing policies that will create new jobs around key environmental positions," he wrote. Under legislation introduced last week, households will receive a subsidy for electricity generated by domestic solar panels, amounting to 60 cents for every unused kW hour fed back into the power grid.

Critics argue that this will not increase the take-up of solar panels and should be extended to businesses and community groups to harness more solar energy. The tariff they advocate involves payments for all the solar energy produced, not just that added to the grid.

The Electrical Trades Union has campaigned for a "gross feed-in tariff", mindful that its introduction in Germany in 2000 triggered more than 40,000 jobs in the solar industry. Victorian secretary Dean Mighell described the state's net feed-in laws as terrible and he called on the Federal Government to insist on a national gross feed-in tariff. "I've got more than 17,000 potential climate change warriors in this state," he said.

Energy Minister Peter Batchelor has opposed a gross feed-in tariff, saying it would be unfair to households that did not have solar panels. But a solar expert, University of New South Wales academic Muriel Watt, has studied the likely impact of a gross system in NSW and found it would cost all households three to four cents a week. Victoria and Queensland have opted for a net tariff, while the ACT and Western Australia have chosen a gross tariff. NSW will decide within days.

In January, The Age revealed that an internal Department of Sustainability and Environment document had found the uptake of solar energy "will be no greater" under the proposed scheme. The memo put the household cost of a "gross" tariff at $7 a year, not the $100 the Government claimed. In his letter, Mr Boyd said the Government's position was based on a wrong assumption about the cost to households.

Mr Batchelor said the feed-in tariff was designed to make solar panels more affordable. "I would have thought that Trades Hall would have been more interested in a scheme that minimises the costs imposed on Victorian families while helping households implement solar technology," he said.