The Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission is well off the mark in its criticism of Canberra's gross solar feed-in tariff (''ACT hit by green energy premium'', July 1, p1).
Support for solar is tiny compared with two massive cross-subsidies in electricity prices.
Firstly, lack of a price on carbon emissions is an enormous cross-subsidy from our children, who will bear the cost of a damaged planet.
Secondly, people who have air conditioning are cross-subsidised by those who do not.
On hot days, excessive air conditioning demand causes the cost of electricity to rise sharply. However, owners of air conditioning systems pay only the standard retail tariff (set at an average value) instead of a cost-reflective rate.
This large cross-subsidy to people who own air conditioning systems is skewed towards affluent households, and far exceeds support for rooftop solar systems.
Time-of-use metering would allow retail electricity prices to rise and fall, depending upon cost. It would encourage improved house insulation and energy management, and would favour rooftop solar systems (which generate well on summer days).
An important reason to support rooftop solar systems is to rapidly build industry scale for the future. The solar resource is 500 times larger than required for solar energy to replace all of the world's fossil and nuclear power stations.
During the next decade, the cost of solar power will decline below the retail price of electricity, and will continue to fall. With a sustained effort, the world could be solar powered within a few decades, and thus avoid dangerous climate change.
Professor Andrew Blakers, director, ARC Centre for Solar Energy Systems, Australian National University.
I am disappointed at the claims made in the article ''ACT hit by green energy premium'' (July 1, p1) implying that the ACT's efforts to combat climate change, in particular the introduction of its landmark feed-in tariff, are somehow a burden to residents and at odds with Commonwealth efforts.
The impact of the feed-in tariff on ACT consumers was considered by the ICRC itself in its recent Final Decision Retail Prices for Non-Contestible Electricity Customers 2009-2010.
They calculated the cost to the average ACT household as about $27 per year, or 2 per cent of an average bill.
This equates to approximately seven cents per day, or 52 cents per week on an average ACT household bill a reasonable price, I believe, to pay to help reduce ACT emissions and lay the basis for an emerging green economy in the territory.
Claims that businesses will flee the territory, leaving ACT consumers to carry the FIT burden, are alarmist at best.
The opinions of the ICRC and the arguments set out in the Wilkins Report were made in the context of an effective national response to climate change being in place. I think we all know that no such thing currently exists.
Legislation to introduce an emissions trading scheme by July 2011 at the earliest is bogged down in the Senate with no certainty of passage.
Even then the extent of rumoured exemptions to large industry users makes the initial effectiveness of a such a scheme doubtful.
At this time, the only innovative and effective climate change and emission reduction programs have come about through states and territories stepping up to fill the national policy void.
Until effective Commonwealth schemes in these areas are in place and are proven, it would be inappropriate for any jurisdiction to abrogate its community responsibilities.
The community expects government to address climate change and I am not embarrassed at all that the ACT has acted decisively to do so.
Simon Corbell, ACT Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water.
The ACT's feed-in tariff (''ACT hit by green energy premium'', July, 1 p1) is entirely consistent with the polluter pays principle.
Hopefully, it will encourage Canberrans, the wealthiest per capita in the nation, to reorient their priorities to include putting solar panels on their roofs.
As stated in the excellent ''Vast gap of science and politics on global warming'' (June 1, p11), we are in a climate crisis. The outcome is likely to be far worse than any increase in electricity bills.
Since the Rudd Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will benefit big polluters at the expense of others, do nothing meaningful for the environment and negate efforts by others to abate their emissions, I hope it will not pass the Senate.
One has to believe that ultimately sanity will prevail and that all of us will be stimulated into appropriate action to reduce our emissions.
Julia Richards, Kambah
Email a friend