However, there is a major challenge waiting for Tony Abbott once he moves in to The Lodge – and it relates to the fact that the Coalition now controls government in Australia’s three largest electricity-consuming regions: New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria.

Customers in these states consume almost 79 per cent of household power. They consume slightly more than 79 per cent of business power.

Seven million of nine million Australian residential customers are in the three states. Almost 900,000 out of 1.8 million business account holders are based there, too.

This is where the twin issues of energy security and end-user prices have their biggest impact.

Assume Abbott wins a majority big enough to carry him through the next two elections – that is to 2018-19 or 2020-21 depending on whether he goes for a double dissolution to sort out a recalcitrant Senate.

This means the states – NSW in 2015 and 2019, Victoria in 2014 and 2018 and Queensland in 2016 and 2020 -– will all be going to the polls during the Abbott ascendancy, with energy costs continuing to be a “white hot” issue, as Barry O’Farrell described it last year.

Federal governments have major influence over electricity supply – through measures like a carbon price, a renewable energy target, national energy efficiency measures and national standards for power station carbon intensity. They can also buy in to state generation by paying coal plants to close down (as Gillard proposes to do).

But they can’t force measures – like smart meter roll-outs and time-of-use charges – to drive a change in peak power demand, perhaps the biggest single issue impacting user prices through network charges. Nor can they force the privatisation of state-owned businesses. They can’t force the private sector to invest. They don’t control state project planning processes.

Moreover, they may chair the CoAG ministerial council on energy, but it is the group as a whole that has to agree on changes, for example, to the national energy law or the east coast electricity market rules.

What all this boils down to is that an Abbott government will need to work with the Baillieu, O’Farrell and Newman governments – as well as with the other states – to achieve some key changes to electricity supply over the next decade.

No matter how the Greens and their camp followers may howl, two issues dominate the energy supply landscape: reliable delivery of user needs, and prices.

During the tenure of an Abbott government – assuming a huge victory next year and two or three further successes riding on that initial big majority, pretty well the story of his predecessors, Malcolm Fraser and John Howard – it is highly likely that east coast electricity prices will double and that gas prices will too.


http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/energy-policy-state-governmen...

So will Abbott's Nuclear Agenda lift electricity prices even higher?


Surely Abbott is planning a Nuke Tax ?

Swagman wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 9:02am:




You mean like the coal and gas private enterprise whom taxpayers subsidise.

i.e poor little rich Liberal Party leader replacement, Clive Palmer.

salad in wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 9:21am:




Renewable energies are reducing in cost. While Liberal's Abbott replacement leader and Anti CIA agent, Clive Palmer's cash cow : Coal, isn't going to get cheaper.


Electricity will be cheaper when it's Greener.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 9:34am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 9:48am:




Inaction on AGW/ Renewable Energy will cause Cost of Utilities to Rise for Families.


Abbott wants higher energy costs for all Australians.

Let's start with a few facts:

1) the article refers to a 100% price rise (double), not 200% (triple)
2) the article is a prediction on prices which have proven to be woeful over last decade
3) the time period is 10-12 years, not next year


Perspective, context and accuracy: the bane of the Greens.

There is 130 years worth of coal to use.

What's the rush to change?

It's cheaper than renewables and also if we have no carbon tax we don't need to raise its cost.