Interview questions re current electricity costs

Here are some questions that an interviewer could ask a Coalition representative.

Introduction

The Coalition has relied on misleading statistics about current Australian electricity costs to sell their nuclear power scheme. This is serious because if they win the upcoming election, it could lock Australia into pursuing a nuclear-powered future. This deception is clear from:

  • quotes from Peter Dutton’s website, and
  • publicly available information on several Australian electricity plans.

Journalists have a responsibility to challenge and expose this sort of deception.

Another page on this website details these misleading cost statistics.


Here are the questions.

(Note: 56 c/kWh is 56 cents per kilowatt-hour.)


Are your cost claims correct?

The Coalition has argued that Australia should go nuclear because:

  • nuclear Ontario pays 14 c/kWh for electricity,
  • while Australians pay up to 56 c/kWh,
  • with 56 being 4 times 14,
  • that leaves Australians paying 4 times more than Ontarians, “the most in the world”, and
  • nuclear would fix this.

It seems unlikely that Australia is “paying the highest in the world”.

** Are these claims correct?


Coalition quotes behind this question:

“Ontario … households pay around about 14 c/kWh. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 c/kWh.” (O’Brien on Dutton’s website interview: 19/6/2024) (Note: 56 is exactly 4 times 14)

“We could be like Ontario, where … they’re paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia.” (Dutton’s Website: 24 July 2024)

“In South Australia, people are paying 56 c/kWh … We are paying the highest cost in the world.” (Dutton’s website interview, 19/12/2024)


You’ve used 56 c/kWh in comparisons.

You’ve found a South Australian electricity plan that charges 56 c/kWh during peak hours but less at other times, so a few South Australians sometimes pay this inflated cost.

Then, you use this 56 c/kWh to compare costs in Australia and Ontario. In making this comparison, you assume all Australians always pay this inflated cost, not just some South Australians.

** Doesn’t this invalidate your cost comparison?


Supportive data:

The Energy Australia, South Australian: Solar Max Residential Time of Use Plan with:

  • Usage costs
    • Peak hour: 56.98 c/kWh
    • Off-peak usage: 30.80 c/kWh
    • Shoulder hours: 18.04 c/kWh
  • Supply charge: 123.86 cents/day
  • Solar export rebate: 4.5 or 10 c/kWh

But the 56 c/kWh offers cheap electricity.

The plan offering the 56 c/kWh peak-hour cost would provide cheap electricity to a household with solar panels and a battery. A household on this 56 c/kWh plan could charge their battery with solar electricity or from the grid during off-peak hours and never use the 56 c/kWh electricity. If their bills got high, they could change retailers.

** In what way does this electricity plan offer the most expensive electricity in the world?


Comparing an extreme value with an average value

In comparing your Australian cost of 56 c/kWh with your Ontario cost of 14 c/kWh, you’ve compared an extremely high peak-hours Australian cost with an average Ontario cost. Isn’t this a tricky move, an invalid comparison?

*** If Australian electricity is expensive compared to Ontario, why have you resorted to statistical trickery?


Explanation

The Ontario 14 c/kWh seems to come from (1) averaging the off-peak, mid-peak and peak usage charges of 8.7, 12.2 and 18.2 Canadian c/kWh, (2) adding 10% to get 14.3 Australian c/kWh, and (3) rounding this to get the Coalition’s cost of 14 c/kWh. (Edis, 2024)

Comparing an extreme value (a maximum value) with an average value can give a misleading result. For example, If you want to present Tom Hawkins as a better goal kicker than Buddy Franklin, you could compare Hawkins’s eight maximum goals in a match with Franklin’s average of three goals per game. Hawkin’s eight goals seem better than Franklin’s average of three goals – but that misleading comparison ignores (1) Franklin’s higher average than Hawkins and (2) Franklin kicking more goals in one match than Hawkins.


You’ve ignored a NSW cost of 65 c/kWh

You’ve said:

“In South Australia, people are paying 56 c/kWh … We are paying the highest cost in the world.” (Dutton’s website interview, 19/12/2024)

However, the same retailer that offers the 56 c/kWh cost in South Australia has a 65 c/kWh cost in NSW.

** Why did you present SA as having the highest cost in the world when NSW has a higher cost?


You could have chosen 8 c/kWh

Your 56 c/kWh is one usage cost in an electricity plan, which has other usage costs at other times of the day. There is a Victorian plan that offers one usage cost of 8 c/kWh. You could have equally chosen this as your Australian cost.

** Why did you choose the 56 c/kWh as a fair estimate of Australian costs and not the 8 c/kWh?


How have renewables made SA electricity expensive

The Coalition says that (1) SA has high-priced electricity, 56 c/kWh, and (2) the highest penetration of renewables. You convey that the renewables cause the high cost.

However, the AEMO National Energy Market Website shows a different picture:

  • When there is plenty of wind and solar generation, the SA generators compete to sell their electricity, and the 5-minute wholesale price of electricity is very low. (The SA price is negative about 30% of the day),
  • At night, when SA relies on gas, this price goes much higher.
  • This shows that renewables lower electricity costs, but you claim the opposite.

** How has renewable energy made electricity in SA expensive?

** From these SA costs, it seems that gas generation increases the wholesale cost. How does gas generation decrease the cost of electricity?


Supportive Coalition quote:

“As for prices, consider South Australia. It has the largest penetration of renewables of any Australian state. South Australians are paying the highest cost for electricity in the country.” (Dutton’s Website: Talk to CEDA: 23/9/2024)


You’ve ignored wholesale electricity costs.

The Coalition has focussed on retail costs and ignored wholesale electricity costs; SA often used to be the state with the highest wholesale cost. Now, with an annual average of above 70% renewable generation, SA usually has one of the lowest wholesale costs. This shows that renewables tend to lower costs.

** Why has the Coalition ignored SA wholesale costs?


Usage costs: A silly way to compare costs

You have compared Australian costs with costs in other places using usage costs by themselves, e.g., the 56 c/kWh cost.

** Why have you ignored (1) the other usage rates for other hours and (2) the cost per day?


How can we trust your future costs?

You claim nuclear is cheaper than renewables, but:

  • it’s disputed by organisations like the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Management Operator (AEMO), and
  • you’ve misrepresented the simplest statistic supporting your nuclear scheme: the cost of electricity in Australia.

** You’ve been deceptive about current electricity costs; how can you expect Australians to believe your claims about future nuclear costs and timings?


Pride in being trustworthy

** Doesn’t deception like this undermine trust in politics – and democracy?

** Aren’t you ashamed of having misled Australians over the current electricity costs for the seven months – since your media release in June 2024?


Comment: It amazes me that the Coalition politicians have knowingly presented these rigged statistics for months knowing how easily they could be exposed. Are they not concerned for their reputations?

I worked in the petrol and petrochemical industries for 20 years, supporting managers with financial modelling. I then changed careers and worked as an addictions counsellor for 10 years. Gamblers gradually build an alternative reality in which they need their gambling, They build their alternative reality by denying shocks (losses), and the shocks keep on getting bigger. After losing a home and relationship, a gambler can still say, “The only way I can get back to square one is with a big win”.

I suspect that politicians also build an alternative reality. Small first shocks could be having to support a party line that they oppose. Then they have to exaggerate to make headlines. Party leaders have to win an election, or they risk their party leadership. It’s a desperate struggle where the end justifies the means. But what does this do to them as people?

It is the responsibility of the press and other politicians to keep leaders within bounds – so they do not, for example, invade another country to keep power.


Note: I think this webpage is hidden. There are no links from my website to this page.


Related pages

The Colaition’s misleading cost statistics.

The Coalition’s nuclear folly.


Updated: 5 Feb 2025

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.