- Annastacia Palaszczuk waits until second last day of State Parliament to release damning Productivity Commission report, after trying to bury it for six months
- Labor’s flawed renewable energy scheme will increase household, business and industry electricity prices by $1.3 billion
- Queensland families alone will be slugged with $317 million in increased energy prices
Queensland families will pay $317 million more for electricity thanks to the Palaszczuk Labor Government’s extreme renewable energy policy, according to the independent Productivity Commission’s final report into electricity prices released today.
Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls said when the impact on households, businesses and industry was combined, power prices under Labor would soar by $1.3 billion.
“It’s any wonder Labor has left it to the second last sitting day of State Parliament to release the report after trying to bury it for over six months,” Mr Nicholls said.
“Queenslanders will be slugged $10.8 billion in subsidies to pay for Labor’s irresponsible renewable energy scheme – and at the same time they will lose $8 billion in revenue.
“It’s a triple whammy that will hurt families, taxpayers and the Government – and the Commission isn’t even convinced the scheme will actually reduce emissions.
“Labor’s plan will also require $11 billion worth of new power generators to displace perfectly good generators – it’s economically reckless.”
Opposition Energy Spokesperson Michael Hart said the Productivity Commission’s final report found the extreme renewable energy scheme would shrink the Queensland economy and increase the budget deficit.
“Under Annastacia Palaszczuk and Mark Bailey’s plan Queenslanders will pay more and receive less,” Mr Hart said.
“Labor’s 50 per cent target means Queenslanders will be subsidising other States, which is grossly unfair,”
“The LNP supports national action on a renewable energy target but not an extreme target that is unfair, unaffordable and unachievable.”
The Productivity Commission on Labor’s 50% Renewable Energy Report:
- Page 81: “Generators in Queensland would experience a decrease in total earnings of around $6.2 billion or 15 per cent. The Queensland Government, as owner of the majority of carbon generators in Queensland, would incur the largest financial cost.”
- Page 81: “The QRET (Queensland Renewable Energy Target) is projected to generally result in small electricity retail price increases”
- Page 107: “This is a result of a QRET targeting renewables rather than emissions reduction, which results in gas-fired generation rather than coal being displaced (Figure 38). No coal plants closed as a result of a QRET; however, if they did, price impacts may be higher due to the merit order effect and a reduction in supply.”
- Page 104: ACIL Allen's modelling estimates that a QRET would require a subsidy of about $10.8 billion (real) over the period to 2030. This consists of $8.6 billion (present value of $5.2 billion) for 6,300 MW of additional large-scale investment, and $2.2 billion (present value of $1.5 billion) for small-scale investment.
- Page 109: “ACIL Allen's modelling projects a QRET to have a small impact on Queensland real retail prices, which are projected to be on average 0.7 per cent higher for households and 0.5 per cent higher for industry…”
- Page 110: “In NPV terms, residential ($317 million), commercial ($221 million) and industrial ($746 million) customers would see their electricity costs increase.”
- Page 111: “ACIL Allen's modelling indicates that consumers in the rest of the NEM would be better off with a QRET. On average, the rest of the NEM retail prices are around three per cent lower in a QRET case than in the base case. Queensland consumers would effectively subsidise other NEM businesses and households in achieving emissions reduction.”
- Page 112: “Because a QRET is a renewable energy target, rather than an emissions reduction target, it is not necessarily the least-cost approach for achieving lower emissions.”
- Page 112: “Modelling of the macroeconomic impacts of a QRET suggests Queensland’s Gross State Product would be around 0.25 per cent lower compared to the base case by 2034–35, with the rest of Australia 0.04 per cent better off.”
- Page 112: “ACIL Allen's modelling projects that, with a QRET, Queensland's genco earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) would decrease by 31 per cent, between 2016–17 and 2034–35 relative to the base case. It is estimated that the Queensland Government would forego earnings of $8.3 billion over the period.”
- Page 114: “a QRET would increase resource costs in the electricity sector, reduce Gross State Product (GSP), increase the Queensland Government’s budget deficit and slightly increase retail electricity prices, relative to a business as usual scenario over the period to 2034–35.”
