AGL offers bill credits for reducing solar feed-in (SA)

Received an email yesterday from AGL, they offer up to $95 credit per year in exchange for reducing my solar feed-in for roughly 3 hours per week.

Just want to know how you guys think of the deal?

Here is the original email:

The South Australian electricity grid is facing some big challenges. With over 300,000 solar systems feeding into the grid, the combination of high volumes of solar energy and demand on the grid can sometimes make it challenging to keep the grid stable.

The good news is that there may be ways that you can help! What if you could limit the amount of solar you’re feeding into the grid and earn up to $95 in bill credits per annum at the same time?

Better still, what if you could:

1. Reduce your solar feed-in for roughly 3 hours per week
2. Continue to generate and use your solar energy during these times
3. Receive credits that may be worth more than the solar feed-in amount you would otherwise have received during the time your feed-in was limited (depending on your circumstance)

​Imagine if annual bill credits varied depending on your solar system size and you could earn up to:

• $35 for 4-7 kW system

• $65 for 7-10 kW systems

• $95 for 10+ kW systems

Related Stores

AGL
AGL

Comments

  • +1 vote

    Honestly that's a nice problem to have.

    Offering a rebate for offsetting your lost feed-in makes perfect sense - if you price the FIT at 6c/kWh then that's $93.60 per year of income. If you're not using this capacity during the day it'd be wasted, but otherwise wouldn't mean you're worse off at all.

  • +5 votes

    Is it reducing as in turning it off? Because it just seems like they are not paying you for it.

    It shows the dysfunctional state of Australia to renewables in general. It is possible to get a containerised battery into local areas which will soak up the extra electricity for discharge later in the day but I guess the networks and generators don't want that to happen. Hence the solar tax they are going to bring in to solve two way traffic problems in the grid. Raising billions and they are going to implement a software solution which they say is an infrastructure problem.

    • +1 vote

      The system stays on and I still can use the solar energy, but can't send any excessive amount to the grid.

      It is strange that most countries are promoting green energy, but here in Australia, we have very little incentive for solar and EVs.

      • +2 votes

        The system stays on and I still can use the solar energy, but can't send any excessive amount to the grid.

        Actually not a bad deal if you can schedule to do your washing, dishwashing and whatever else.

        It is strange that most countries are promoting green energy, but here in Australia, we have very little incentive for solar and EVs.

        It is the same reason why Australia's two biggest industries is mining and agriculture. Other big contributor is property. All old school industries. Look at top companies on stock exchange, basically mining, banks and super markets. Only CSL is a biotech company but you can argue they just collect and sell blood products which is old school too. They could only produce AZ vaccine and flu vaccine from eggs. No mRNA technology.

        I just hope everyone gets out in time before things go pear shaped in this country and it will.

  • +10 votes

    My golden rule: if an offer is from AGL, the majority of the benefit will be for AGL

    •  

      Of course. I assume there is negative wholesale prices and taking the solar would mean they would end up paying other people to use it.

    •  

      Yes in ops list, Receive credits that may be worth more than the solar feed-in amount . There is that magic weasle word "MAY", So you will be definetly getting less.

  • +2 votes

    Meanwhile here in WA we're at a measly feed in tariff of 3c/kwh peak and 10c off peak (3pm onwards).

    Really is a shambles when they're reselling your energy for 20c+ a kwh and penalising you for allowing them to profit off your energy.

    I'd do the maths and check what your power generation value is for the peak 3 hours of the day for the whole year.

    You may come off ahead.
    As for me the peak 3 hours at ~3500kw/h a day is 10.5kw/h
    This would return a whole 30c/day in WA.

    30c*365 is $109.50 so it would be a net loss for me taking up the offer.

    • +3 votes

      Really doesn't make sense does it.

      If you have people who are willing to put up the capital to install panels and become electricity generators and as retailer you buy low with no capital outlay to sell at 20c. Even at 10c feed in you are still in profit rather than spending millions. I have been told 5MW solar farm is $8m+ to build. It is basically the Uber / Airbnb model. Someone else brings all the tools and you just make a cut regardless.

      This is the lucky country. Just not the clever country.

    •  

      It makes sense because when an electricity company is selling you energy at 20c+/kwh, the electricity component of that is somewhere between 3 and 6c/kwh. Then you add on like 10-13c/kwh in taxes, transmission costs, government regulatory fees, etc etc. Why should an electricity company pay you more money for your solar than what it costs to purchase from a power plant?

      •  

        The transmission costs, government regulatory fees etc are already paid for in your supply charge.

        The profit on the energy by the company is purely that, profit.
        They are literally making 17c off you for every kwh you sell to your neighbour.

        Yes there are grid losses, but because you're already next to the neighbourhood that would consume the energy the resistive losses would be minor.

        •  

          No they aren't, there are taxes and transmission costs applied directly to the customer's kWh usage on top of the cost you pay to the generator.

        •  

          Yes there are grid losses, but because you're already next to the neighbourhood that would consume the energy the resistive losses would be minor.

          Except when you’re making the peak production of your solar (ie at midday or so) where do you think most of your neighbours are? They’re at work, not consuming this electricity.

          That’s why DEBS was bought in to encourage people to make use of their solar during the peak production period (by making it only 3c FIT) and then to export to the grid when the power was needed (from 3pm when people start to get home and turn on AC’s/dishwashers/lights/TV’s etc) as the production times and the consumption times between solar and when people generally use electricity don’t match unfortunately.

  •  

    People that think that using batteries to store electricity is ESG should take a flight above a mine or two and see the environmentally friendly footprint they leave behind.

    Queensland Government officials have taken emergency action to stop massive mine storage ponds on the Queensland-New South Wales border discharging heavy metals into the Murray-Darling system, the ABC can reveal.

    Heavy rainfall this week threatened to trigger a spill of the processing ponds and dams at the Texas silver mine in southern Queensland.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-25/emergency-action-take...

    Mining companies want to ramp up production, ignoring an environmental disaster in 1998 when mine tailings containing toxic levels of heavy metals contaminated a whole river valley. Some worry it could happen again.
    https://m.dw.com/en/concerns-grow-about-toxic-levels-of-heav...

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=heavy+metal+mine&t=braveed&iar=ima...

    Either use the solar power, sell it or lose it. Don't store it.

    •  

      Should we stop mining iron ore, gold, coal etc then?

      All mines have a negative environmental impact.
      Just the products that come out of some go towards minimising environmental damage, as opposed to coal which literally has no other use than burning for energy or coking steel.

      No one's saying that batteries are a blessing for the environment.
      Just in the grand scheme of things they're the best we have for transitioning to a more sustainable future.

      It's a risk/harm minimisation approach.

  • +1 vote

    AGL would have to be the most expensive company. Do an online check.