The Energy Supply Association is concerned that a small part of the carbon tax laws may cost them more money upfront — and as a result, add nearly 20 per cent to electricity bills.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the problem, which relates to the fact that the new plans would force immediate payment for forward-dated emission permits, rather than the deferred payments that were permitted under the previous emissions scheme; in other words they’ve got to pay upfront what they used to be able to put off. The report quotes the Energy Supply Association interim chief executive, Clare Savage as saying that
Our members need to begin purchasing forward permits… if they can’t afford to they won’t be able to lock in a future price for carbon… and that means prices will rise. It is the Senate’s job to fix obvious errors and in our view there is an obvious error in these bills. We have drafted an amendment and … just 20 words and they could fix this problem.”
It appears to essentially be a cash flow problem; the report notes that the government’s plan is auction 15 million forward-dated pollution permits in 2012-13. The electricity generators say they’d buy 10 times more than that — but they don’t have the working capital to pay for it immediately. [SMH]
Image: ddebold
poita
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:16 AMI don’t think there are many of us that couldn’t reduce our power consumption by 20% if we really tried, which is the whole point really.
Plus with the tax breaks I get under the proposed system, I’ll end up better off.
I’m sure some other prices will rise too as a result, but it will at least focus everyone on how much electricity they use, we have to pay the proper price for stuff one day.
wardski
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:43 PMThe issue with the Carb0mb Tax is the following:
Anyone earning a decent wage (say $150k PA) will loose about $90 a week to the tax.
Add to that the price increase on Food, Fuel, Electricity, Public Transport, Car Registration, Car Prices, basically everything that requires energy/fuel to run, I’d be looking at about a $120 a week hit.
So, Why the Farken should I be paying for a tax that does nothing but rob the educated-worked-their-asses-off-to-get-that-great-job and pay the loosers of the country, all the while not providing better public transport or the means for us to reduce energy consumption in this country..
I mean, WTF? even home solar panel installations are tripping out the elec grid and set to cost consumers more $$ – I mean I didn’t pay $2k to get a solar system on my roof so that I would have to pay more!!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/rooftop-solar-panels-overloading-electricity-grid/story-fn99tjf2-1226165360822
Its a damned if you do, damned if you don’t crisis point, which will just encourage talented working class people to vacate Australia leaving it with an even greater skills shortage than it already has..
I mean WTF Gillard? This whole Carbon tax should be voted on by the people right now – before they waste even more tax payers $$ on something that Australia just does not need….
working poor
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 2:01 PMUnfortunately I see a trend that the richer people get the less they seem to give a shit everyone or anything else and the more they care about themselves. It’s unfortunate people like you are the ones that express this kind of opinion. I’m not half as arrogant to suggest that all people who earn 150/pa + are so selfish in their opinion. It’s just that the ones who do seem to want to vocalise it and rub people faces in it. After all, ALL people who earn 150k p/a are obviously the only people who do work hard and deserve to get payed good amounts of money. Then again it could also be the going rate of the industry in which you work. But you know I work extremely hard myself and I’m educated. However the going rate for my job is rather shitty, so I have to compensate by working two jobs just to get by. But this is a choice i make because I love what i do, and that means more to me than 150k/pa. However think about how $120 p/w affects someone who earns 50k p/a or 35 p/a. But i suppose you wouldn’t think that. Because those kind of people are bums. They don’t matter do they? Because obviously our vast database of expert knowledge of the working habits of the lower socioeconomic is obviously well researched and a result of better “education”
working poor
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 2:21 PMjust to make that last line clear, It was meant to say.
Because obviously your vast database of expert knowledge of the working habits of the lower socioeconomic is obviously well researched and a result of better “education”
Brett
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 1:35 AMPiss off working poor. The successful are not slaves that exist to pay for everything.
The first four hours of every one of my working days is already stolen by the Government.
Max
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:31 PMI think what wardski is trying to say is why the fuck should he, or I for that matter, prop you up?
d
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 3:50 PMWelcome to australia bro. This country pays you to be unemployed and uneducated.
Aj
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 1:25 AMLoose != Lose
Graham
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:19 AMThat seems… odd. So they want to buy more permits upfront to avoid higher costs later. As a result, they have to increase costs now? Bwuh?
Sam
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:17 AMThere’s a lot of things about how the power industry are reacting to the carbon tax that don’t make sense.
Down here in Tassie, the majority of our power is sourced from emissionless hydro – yet Aurora will be handing out price increases in line with the new tax. Figure that one out!
wardski
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:46 PMAnyone notice Fuel prices have increased again?? AUS will be lucky to see any of the fuel refiners stay here. The CT hit to refiners is astronomical…
Chris Deke
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:31 AMWow, what a shock, scare tactics by the pollution industry, I am amazeballs!
Seriously though, I’d care about this if the story read that they wanted to buy 10 times more solar panels, or wind turbines. They want to buy 10 times more pollution permits. Cry me a f’ing river.
Roachless
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:31 AMNot likely. World is ending today, remember???
Dennison
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:33 AMThe carbon tax is pretty much going to F everyone in the A. Everyone from standard residents to businesses.
It has been proven that even though it is going to cost everyone, it will only reduce carbon emission by less than one percent.
cam
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM+1
The irony is it does nothing to resolve the issue it purports to and only creates more issues with extra expenses.
Harvz
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:01 AMwell thats like saying that fines dont stop people from breaking the law.
Cost is a deterrent and the money raised will go to renewable resources and when everyone get the extra ~$600 at tax time there will be intensives to spend that on things like solar power and water
The Gremlin
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:14 AMIt stands that it solves nothing as OZ isn’t a significant contributor to emmissions.
Jason
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:28 AMUh, okay. Cost is a deterrent and yet more than half the population will be better off. That some really good behaviour modification strategy. Fail.
Harvz
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:46 AMbecause the cost day to day will be higher you will look for things to save money on day to day basis. then at tax time you get a lump sum of money and people will think to spend that on something that will save them money throughout the year
Alex
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:20 AM@MDolley
sorry but you are forgetting what happened to GST vs noTAX approach that was originally introduced
the money that you think you gone get back will cover only % of what you gone have to pay…
as soon as energy gets taxed in any way EVERYTHING increases in price dramatically and that ~600 that you think you gone get back (are you unemployed or something?) gone go in to your general bills in no time…
and then there is Asia and US and europe that produce a lot more pollution and have lower cost of living … what is the whole point of putting economy under pressure in this dark times?
Alex
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:21 AMthat post was for @Harvz not for MDolley
Harvz
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:52 AMno im not unemployed, me and my partner earn around $60k a year and we will get back $606 a year
go here and you will see what you will get and what they think it will cost you
https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/
Harvz
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:53 AMthat’s $60k each a year not combined
Alex
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 11:00 AM“we will get back” between 2 of you… thats sounds about right
now caclulate how much more you gone be paying even if its JUST 20% for electricity…
p.s.
I already got all my bulbs changed for energy efficient ones and I cant have solar power Im not gone be better off in any way even with DIRECT price increase … not to mention indirect general price increase for other goods and services
MDolley
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:12 AMSo? I don’t really worry about the emission reduction side of things.
Coal and Oil aren’t going to last forever. They are a finite resource. Why not make the people that use the most of them contribute financially to coming up with an alternative?
When petrol becomes $10/L and coal production halts I’d much rather live in a country where billions of dollars have been invested into renewable sources of energy.
Even if you don’t believe in climate change you can’t argue that the stuff dug out of the ground is eventually going to run out.
Mmmmm
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 3:36 PMWe have enough coal and shale in Oz to make oil for the next melenia. I think we’ll all be dead by then
Luke
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:37 AMTypical liberal bullshit, they are just using the big T word to scare people, When someone throws the word tax around and people panic.
Peter
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:56 PMKooky conservatives, lol.
Ryan
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 3:30 PMThat’s because their money is being taken without their consent.
If you want to reduce your carbon emissions, you pay for it. Forcing it on those who don’t agree with you is simply tyrannical, regardless of the costs or benefits proposed.
Brett
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 1:39 AMExactly. Oh those crazy Liberals with their tax hysterics. How about you stop stealing our shit arsehole?
Matt
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:07 AMAs far as I’m concerned I think this tax will leave us better off.
If a business chooses to past the costs on instead of lowering it’s carbon tax by investing in renewable energies it seems like business suicide.
The ones who thrive in 20 years time will be the ones that choose to invest in renewable and not passing these costs on, bringing a competitive edge and taking most the market.
JD
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:07 AMIt’s been proven Dennison? By who? Link please.
I agree with poita, I could reduce my energy use by 20% for sure, I don’t get compensation but that’s fine. I’m happy to pay more to reduce pollution.
RB
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:07 AMTime to look for cheaper, less carbon producing power generation methods… *cough* nuclear *cough*
Max
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 2:09 PM+1
Eccentric
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:09 AM“The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the problem, which relates to the fact that the new plans would force immediate payment for forward-dated emission permits”
If they changed the language to something everybody can understand and relate to, at least then we could all make an informed decision. Right now nobody talks about it the same way and there a dozen different opinions, both positive and negative! How about they make a short video that explains in layman’s terms exactly what is going to happen, because I’m fucked if I understand it.
Kevin
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:21 AMThis doesn’t read to me like the usual scare mongering. They’re not saying they’re against the tax, they’re just saying it needs to be changed slightly.
Nathan
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:49 AMThis is crap, the industry has been inflating the price of electricity since 2007 in anticipation of a carbon scheme that Labor said they would bring in (with the mandate).
Liberals blocked it, infact Tony Abbott siezed power over it and blocked it even though Labor had the mandate to do it.
Now the power companies are crying poor and using their business strategies as an excuse to charge more. Stuff that. The government should make companies project the amount they are going to pollute and buy no more than 10 or 20% over those estimates in carbon credit each year.
Dan
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:07 PMThe power companies buy their power from power stations. Power stations that were owned by the tax payers. Then the state governments started selling the power station off, and introduced stricter measures on polluting. So the privateers who now own the power stations have to increase the cost of electricity to pay for maintenance/penalties/and extra costs associated with running them. Now the power companies want to keep their profit margins and increase them if possible (capitalism – things like this resulting in the occupy movement). The price of electricity goes up. Who sold off the power stations (at a loss)? Labor, who is bringing in the carbon trading scheme? Labor.. who is causing the cost of electricity to be increased Labor. Yes let’s try and save the planet, but this scheme and Australia as a nation can’t do it alone. Where is out democracy?
Scott
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:59 AMThe things you can be sure of, regarding the carbon tax:
- Many citizens don’t know what it does, but they all feel a new tax is A Bad Thing.
- Industrial companies do NOT want to pay it. They want to keep their money.
- Industrial companies will use threats to fight the tax, via the ignorance and tax-fear of Australians.
Regardless of whether it will make a different, regardless of what price increases may happen, you can be guaranteed that companies will attempt to mentally manipulate the Australian population via threats and bad advertising, to achieve their end goal of abolishing the carbon tax.
Johnny P
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 11:08 AMRemember people that you dont get charged just for usage, there is a service charge too. Any money you think you will be saving by using less power will be offset by increases in the service charge
Leo
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:00 PM–NOTICE–
Please do NOT feed the Fears.
Stuart
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:10 PMIn the end this really has nothing to do with the Carbon DIOXIDE Tax. Energy/Gas/Water will always continually rise as we use less of it, we are encouraged to go solar, use less water but we are still paying the same price (if not dearer) than we did 5 years ago.
The reason for this is because we’re using less, the energy companies were obviously making less money from us thus want to keep their profits the same or more, so they rise the price.
State/Federgal Government should never have privatised Power/Water companies in Australia (please note that not all have afaik).
Governments should be responsible for Power (be it supplied by hydro-electricity, solar, wind, geo-thermal), Gas, Fuel (LPG, Petrol, Diesel and future endeavours), Water. All run at a bare minimum profit, and any profit should go back into the budgets.
Unfortunately such a case would never happen as Governments are too incompetent (not singling out the current State/Federal Government(s)) and for some stupid reason all Governments only look as far ahead as the next election instead of what will be best for Australia in the long term.
Kevin
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:20 PMWe’re using less? umm… what!?
Also, even if we were using less, it would mean less money needed for infrastructure, cheaper prices for the consumer. It’s not like the companies just take all the money we pay as profit. What are you talking about?
Sam
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:52 PMthing i want to know, how is the carbon tax going to actually decrease what comes out of the pipe/stack/thingy?
its just another tax for the government to pay themselfs their wages.
back benchers going from 140 to 250k p.a? why don’t they increase the 2% that the working people get?
thats all this carbon tax is for… not for the enviroment, never was, never will be
Kevin
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 1:02 PMWell, if a power station were to install scrubbers that removed most of the co2 from the smoke being emitted by the ‘pipe/stack/thingy’ they would pay less carbon tax and, thus, co2 emissions would be reduced.
Peter
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 1:00 PMGreat, Gizmodo has been taken over by Alan Jones listening, News Limited reading swill. If you absorb their tripe, you are not qualified to comment on the big boy stuff. Now go outside and play.
Jason
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 2:12 PMGreat, a Gawker website has *finally* published an article that doesn’t pander to the Left. How refreshing!
Peter
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 3:32 PM…Allure Media you mean? Go back to your climate change denying, head in the clouds, “big business is just trying to do the right thing” spin News Limited sites. If you watched a second of Media Watch (It’s on iview if your mum won’t let you stay up so late) you’d see why the SMH and it’s ilk are editorially bankrupt and how it’s making you just as intellectually bankrupt.
Simon
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 3:43 PMFar out. It’s like what a reader mentioned in the other hot Gizmodo climate article today (climate-change-sceptics-eat-crow/)….it’s creepy how evangelistic the Global Warming community has become. It is like a religion. Don’t dare ask challenging questions or else you’ll be put in the naughty corner.
I find it bemusing how dismissive and righteous you all are.
Peter
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 4:01 PMFurthermore, this is about big business throwing a hussy fit and threatening to pass operating costs on instead of absorbing them themselves, fuel never prices never recovered post September 11 because they’re pocketing the difference. Its so easy to blame a political boogeyman, but you’re just fooling yourself.
Peter
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 4:30 PMLol, hussy fit.
G
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 6:32 AMIf this government or any government was working in the best interests of the public health and purse they would be assisting the industries we rely upon to meet the emission targets they rightly or wrongly have decided to implement. Why take large amounts of wealth from the companies you claim are the ones with the capability of developing the cleaner technologies you seek. Industry, like the auto industry should have small incremental reduction targets to comply with each year that result in the long term with better and cleaner technology that has not stood the economy on its head.
The climate change movement lost its credibility when the deciding factor about who is allowed to pollute and who is not is how much money you have.