Sun setting on solar rebate

[nabraxas]

HOUSEHOLDS earning less than $100,000 have just six months to install solar panels or they will probably pay thousands of dollars more.

The Federal Government announced last week it would change its rebate for solar panels, and said all households would get "up to" $7500.

The change was billed as good news, but it is fiendishly complicated.

And it now appears that the rebate will be worth considerably less than $7500.

Any household earning less than $100,000 a year will have as much as $3600 lopped off their solar rebate when the new scheme starts in July.

But it's clear that households earning more than $100,000 will do much better under the new system.

Under the current system, the Government gives a means-tested rebate of $8000 to any household earning less than $100,000 that installs solar panels. There is also a small, separate rebate.

The new system gives a non-means-tested rebate to all households, but it is tied in with the Renewable Energy Target scheme and the value will fluctuate. To add to the complexity, states get different amounts.

For those living in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide - the "warm zone" - the rebate for households earning under $100,000 will drop from $9275 to $6374. This is based on installing an average-sized 1.5kw system.

For those earning above the $100,000 threshold, the government rebates will rise from $1275 to $6374.

For people living in Victoria and Tasmania - the "cold zone" - the rebate for households on less than $100,000 will drop from $9093 to $5466. Above that threshold, rebates will rise from $1093 to $5466.

These figures are based on data provided by solar panel manufacturer Conergy.

Managing director Rodger Meads said yesterday the value of the new rebate would fluctuate, but he drew some overall conclusions.

"People on over $100,000 a year will be better off, in my opinion," he said.

It was a different story for households earning under $100,000: "On the preliminary figures today, they will be a little bit worse off. There won't be quite the same amount of money for them."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,...247-662,00.html

does that make sense to anyone?

[Torsten]

I am still sceptical about the change, but I can also see merit in it. During tough economic times only the rich will bother putting in solar systems, ie those with high incomes. While I am usually not one to support rebates for the rich, in this case you have to look at what the target is. The target is to get as many kWh of solar energy collected as possible. It does not make any difference whether this is for poor people or rich people. In fact, rich people who decide to go solar are more likely to go beyond the 1.5 kWh rebate limit, ie the government only has to invest $6000 or so to get someone with a 5kWh consumption off their backs.

personally I don't think they should give ANY rebates. I think all solar systems of ANY size should be funded by a HECS style loan system. That way the government would foot the full bill once, but would never have to be concerned about that customer again. The HECS style repayments would be similar to paying for your electricity bill. ie for a $40,000 system [which is a substantial system] this would mean $3000 in repayments per year [which is probably comparable to an equivalent consumption annual power bill]. This could be income/means tested to some degree [like HECS] so that rich or high income people will pay it off quicker than low income people, and thus more money would be freed up for the next set of loans. Making the debt non-transferable would also mean that when a house is sold the HECS debt is paid out from the sale, ie again freeing up more money.

It's such a simple system and it could be staggered so that it wouldn't put undue stress on the government finances. Unless of course they leave it for another 10 years and then have to do it under pressure.