❓ Minister responds to a question about demand side management (DSM) in the electricity market, criticising a previous Labor initiative and accusing a member of parliament of changing their stance due to lobbying from a foreign multinational.
AnsweredQoN 30Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ELECTRICITY — DEMAND MANAGEMENT
30. Mr P. ABETZ to the Minister for
Energy:
I read with interest an article in
the weekend media regarding the use of demand side management from the Western
Australian electricity market and claims by those opposite that its removal
will increase electricity prices. Will the minister please set the record
straight for us?
30. Mr P. ABETZ to the Minister for
Energy:
I read with interest an article in
the weekend media regarding the use of demand side management from the Western
Australian electricity market and claims by those opposite that its removal
will increase electricity prices. Will the minister please set the record
straight for us?
AnswerView source ↗
Thanks very much for the question.
First, demand side management has been around for a long time. It is
essentially a good program. At peak times, firms, if they agree, are called on
to reduce electricity. That avoids producing more electricity. It has been
going on since the 1980s. That is okay. They were paid by the amount of energy
they avoided. Most of the time it is turned down, they do not save any energy;
they actually turn their diesel generator on. That is beside the point. Labor's
change of markets 10 years ago added a different twist to it; that is, they
allowed demand side management, not paid by energy produced but by energy
prompts, if called on. It also significantly increased the price. More
importantly, they left it up to the Independent Market Authority, which allowed
demand side management to grow from about 20 megawatts to over 500 megawatts.
The real issues are: Does it work? Does it save energy? Does it save costs? It
turns out that for this new type—paid on a promise—no. They
have received $429 million from electricity consumers and taxpayers, and have
been called on eight times. If I delete the number of times they were called on
to test whether it works, it is two times. That is one reason we have had very
high increases in electricity prices and high levels of subsidies. I undertook
a review to look at how it should be priced and how much it should be. The
member for Cannington and I debated this last October. He was really onside me
closing it down; in fact he screamed out, ''Stop paying them! Stop it.
Don't do it. Don't pay them anymore!'' He yelled across
the floor, ''Stop it right now.''
He was defending electricity
consumers and taxpayers. I said that I was going to go through a review. It has
a good concept. It depends on how it is paid and for how much. I was shocked
recently when I found out that the member for Cannington had done a 180! He
supports it. He said, ''Defend demand side management.'' I asked,
''What happened? Why has there been a change?'' I checked his
Facebook—I do not look at it very often—and then I saw it.
Several members interjected.
Dr
M.D. NAHAN : When the member was on his jaunt around the world, he went to
Boston and visited with the large American multinational EnerNOC, which is
running this campaign. It is spending $10 million on a campaign to defend DSM.
I know why EnerNOC is doing that, because if I were getting $37 million a year
to do nothing, I would support it too. Why has the member for Cannington done a
180-degree turn? Why did the member for Cannington say, ''Stop it''
and why is he is now saying, ''Defend it''? Why is he doing this?
I ask members that question. Maybe he likes $10 million being spent to campaign
against the Liberal Party. Maybe he is on a marginal seat campaign. But do you
know what? He is supporting a foreign multinational that is participating in
Western Australia's politics and is spending $10 million to continue to
rip off Western Australian electricity consumers. He is selling out to Western
Australian taxpayers and electricity users. That is the Labor Party.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : That question is finished.
First, demand side management has been around for a long time. It is
essentially a good program. At peak times, firms, if they agree, are called on
to reduce electricity. That avoids producing more electricity. It has been
going on since the 1980s. That is okay. They were paid by the amount of energy
they avoided. Most of the time it is turned down, they do not save any energy;
they actually turn their diesel generator on. That is beside the point. Labor's
change of markets 10 years ago added a different twist to it; that is, they
allowed demand side management, not paid by energy produced but by energy
prompts, if called on. It also significantly increased the price. More
importantly, they left it up to the Independent Market Authority, which allowed
demand side management to grow from about 20 megawatts to over 500 megawatts.
The real issues are: Does it work? Does it save energy? Does it save costs? It
turns out that for this new type—paid on a promise—no. They
have received $429 million from electricity consumers and taxpayers, and have
been called on eight times. If I delete the number of times they were called on
to test whether it works, it is two times. That is one reason we have had very
high increases in electricity prices and high levels of subsidies. I undertook
a review to look at how it should be priced and how much it should be. The
member for Cannington and I debated this last October. He was really onside me
closing it down; in fact he screamed out, ''Stop paying them! Stop it.
Don't do it. Don't pay them anymore!'' He yelled across
the floor, ''Stop it right now.''
He was defending electricity
consumers and taxpayers. I said that I was going to go through a review. It has
a good concept. It depends on how it is paid and for how much. I was shocked
recently when I found out that the member for Cannington had done a 180! He
supports it. He said, ''Defend demand side management.'' I asked,
''What happened? Why has there been a change?'' I checked his
Facebook—I do not look at it very often—and then I saw it.
Several members interjected.
Dr
M.D. NAHAN : When the member was on his jaunt around the world, he went to
Boston and visited with the large American multinational EnerNOC, which is
running this campaign. It is spending $10 million on a campaign to defend DSM.
I know why EnerNOC is doing that, because if I were getting $37 million a year
to do nothing, I would support it too. Why has the member for Cannington done a
180-degree turn? Why did the member for Cannington say, ''Stop it''
and why is he is now saying, ''Defend it''? Why is he doing this?
I ask members that question. Maybe he likes $10 million being spent to campaign
against the Liberal Party. Maybe he is on a marginal seat campaign. But do you
know what? He is supporting a foreign multinational that is participating in
Western Australia's politics and is spending $10 million to continue to
rip off Western Australian electricity consumers. He is selling out to Western
Australian taxpayers and electricity users. That is the Labor Party.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : That question is finished.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.