Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Solar Feed-In Tariffs SOLAR FEED-IN TARIFFS The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council SOLAR FEED-IN TARIFFS The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:49): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government, representing the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, a question about the solar feed-in scheme. Leave granted. The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: My office has been contacted by a large number of South Australians with concerns about how ETSA Utilities is implementing the changes to the South Australian solar feed-in scheme passed by this parliament last year. Members will be aware that concerns were raised at the time of the debate about the potential for households and businesses to install solar panels for the dominant purpose of generating a profit. Whilst I have no problem with solar power owners earning money from their investment, the parliament did choose to pass changes that would deal with this issue by restricting the amount of electricity that would attract the higher solar feed-in rate to a maximum of 45 kilowatt hours per day. This was consistent with the changes that were foreshadowed by the then premier Mike Rann in August 2010. Subsequently, after much delay, parliament passed legislation to put effect to this in the middle of last year. However, after the legislation was passed, separate rules were developed in a completely internal process between the private corporation ETSA Utilities and the energy department without any consultation with consumers or industry. Those rules were that there was a further restriction on eligible households, which was based on an arbitrary figure of 3.04 kilowatts as the size of a system and where those systems were installed on meters that use less than 400 kilowatt hours per year of electricity. Since this restriction has been retrospectively applied to households and to businesses—and that retrospectivity was up to six to eight months before the rules were published—my office understands that up to 150 households have been targeted by ETSA. Many of these are farmers who put panels on their farming equipment sheds to offset their power use. These South Australians are quite rightly outraged that the goalposts have shifted and they now potentially risk being thrown off the scheme retrospectively, and that will cost them many tens of thousands of dollars and they have no right of appeal. Another concern that has been raised from a small number of households, again mostly in the country, who through no fault of their own only managed to have their panels installed after the arbitrary cut-off date. They fulfilled all their obligations, but through delays that were outside their control, such as poor weather or slow installation by solar installers, they now face being ineligible for the scheme. My questions are: 1.	Why has ETSA Utilities introduced an arbitrary 400 kilowatt hours per year annual minimum electricity use cut-off when the 45 kilowatt hours per day restriction that was passed by this parliament is sufficient to deal with the issue of commercial operations so-called profiteering from the solar scheme, and why do both rules exist when only one will achieve the aims of the legislation? 2.	What process is there for households to appeal any rulings by ETSA Utilities? 3.	Considering the government is so concerned about sovereign risk with mining companies—and we note the $5 million payment to Marathon—why isn't it equally concerned about sovereign risk for South Australians, who, in good faith and following the rules laid down at the time, have invested in solar energy and now face retrospective changes? 4.	Considering the enormous impact on the relatively small number of people affected, what will the government do to ensure that these people will not be artificially punished for trying to do the right thing by investing in solar energy? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (14:53): I thank the honourable member for his important questions and will refer them to the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy in the other place and bring back a response.