Government services at both federal and state level have suffered for years because of a shortage of cash and an unwillingness on both sides of politics to increase taxes. Funny thing is that it is OK to do things like increase government charges but not to do anything that can be labelled a tax. Even funnier, successfully, labelling something as a levy may be OK while the same thing labelled as a tax is not. (Perhaps Gillard would have survived if she had talked about a carbon levy to pay for certain climate action instead of a carbon tax.)
Monday, February 3, 2014
This note compares the use of gross Vs net Feed In Tariffs (FIT) in rooftop solar (RTS) contracts.
The objective of this note was to choose a form of FIT that:
- Encourages investment in RTS.
- Helps minimize the power bills of those who don't have RTS while giving investors a reasonable return on their investment after taking account of the risks involved.
- Avoid forcing householders who don't have RTS into subsidising those who do.
It was concluded that:
- Gross feed in tariffs will be better at driving investment in RTS while reducing the cost per kWh renewable power to consumers in general.
- Qld should replace net FIT with gross FIT for all new FIT contracts.
- Gross feed in tariffs should also be used where solar and storage are combined and connected to the grid.