Lithium batteries key for plug-in cars

California Electricity Rate Overhaul proposes a fixed fee and lower per-kWh rates to boost electrification, renewables, and grid reliability, while CPUC weighs impacts on conservation, low-income customers, and time-of-use pricing across the state.

Key Points

A proposal to add fixed fees and cut per-kWh prices to drive electrification, support renewables, and balance grid costs.

✅ Fixed monthly fee plus lower volumetric per-kWh charges

✅ Aims to accelerate EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification

✅ CPUC review weighs equity, conservation, and grid reliability

California is contemplating a significant overhaul to its electricity rate structure that could bring major changes to electric bills statewide, a move that has ignited debate among environmentalists and politicians alike. The proposed modifications, spearheaded by the California Energy Commission (CEC), would introduce a fixed fee on electric bills and lower the rate per kilowatt-hour (kWh) used.

Motivations for the Change

Proponents of the plan argue that it would incentivize Californians to transition to electric appliances and vehicles, a critical aspect of the state's ambitious climate goals. They reason that a lower per-unit cost would make electricity a more attractive option for applications like home heating and transportation, which are currently dominated by natural gas and gasoline. Additionally, they believe the plan would spur investment in renewable energy sources and distributed generation, ultimately leading to a cleaner electricity grid.

California has some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country, aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The transportation sector is the state's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and electrification is considered a key strategy for reducing emissions. A 2021 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that electrifying all California vehicles and buildings could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2020 levels.

Concerns and Potential Impacts

Opponents of the proposal, including some consumer rights groups, express apprehensions that it would discourage conservation efforts. They argue that with a lower per-kWh cost, Californians would have less motivation to reduce their electricity consumption. Additionally, they raise concerns that the income-based fixed charges could disproportionately burden low-income households, who may struggle to afford the base charge regardless of their overall electricity consumption.

A recent study by the CEC suggests that the impact on most Californians would be negligible, even as regulators face calls for action over soaring bills from ratepayers across the state. The report predicts that the average household's electricity bill would change by less than $5 per month under the proposed system. However, some critics argue that this study may not fully account for the potential behavioral changes that could result from the new rate structure.

Similar Initiatives and National Implications

California is not the only state exploring changes to its electricity rates to promote clean energy. Hawaii and New York have also implemented similar programs to encourage consumers to use electricity during off-peak hours. These time-varying rates, also known as time-of-use rates, can help reduce strain on the electricity grid during peak demand periods.

The California proposal has garnered national attention as other states grapple with similar challenges in balancing clean energy goals with affordability concerns amid soaring electricity prices in California and beyond. The outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. power sector.

The Road Ahead

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is reviewing the proposal and anticipates making a decision later this year, with a potential income-based flat-fee structure under consideration. The CPUC will likely consider the plan's potential benefits and drawbacks, including its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, electricity costs for consumers, and the overall reliability of the grid, even as some lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in the legislature.

The decision on California's electricity rates is merely one piece of the puzzle in the fight against climate change. However, it is a significant one, with the potential to shape the state's energy landscape for years to come, including the future of residential rooftop solar markets and investments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Just Transition for Coal and Nuclear Workers explains policy frameworks, compensation packages, retraining, and community support during decarbonization, plant closures, and energy shifts across Europe and the U.S., including Diablo Canyon and Uniper strategies.

Key Points

A policy approach to protect and retrain legacy power workers as coal and nuclear plants retire during decarbonization.

✅ Germany and Spain fund closures with compensation and retraining.

✅ U.S. lacks federal support; Diablo Canyon is a notable exception.

✅ Firms like Uniper convert coal sites to gas and clean energy roles.

The coronavirus pandemic has not changed the grim reality facing workers at coal and nuclear power plants in the U.S. and Europe. How those workers will fare in the years ahead will vary greatly based on where they live and the prevailing political winds.

In Europe, the retirement of aging plants is increasingly seen as a matter of national concern. Germany this year agreed to a €40 billion ($45 billion) compensation package for workers affected by the country's planned phaseout of coal generation by 2038, amid its broader exit from nuclear power as part of its energy transition. Last month the Spanish authorities agreed on a just transition plan affecting 2,300 workers across 12 thermal power plants that are due to close this year.

In contrast, there is no federal support plan for such workers in the U.S., said Tim Judson, executive director at the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which lobbies for an end to nuclear and fossil-fuel power.

For all of President Donald Trump’s professed love of blue-collar workers in sectors such as coal, “where there are economic transitions going on, we’re terrible at supporting workers and communities,” Judson said of the U.S. Even at the state level, support for such workers is "almost nonexistent,” he said, “although there are a lot of efforts going on right now to start putting in place just transition programs, especially for the energy sector.”

One example that stands out in the U.S. is the support package secured for workers at utility PG&E's Diablo Canyon Power Plant, California's last operating nuclear power plant that is scheduled for permanent closure in 2025. “There was a settlement between the utility, environmental groups and labor unions to phase out that plant that included a very robust just transition package for the workers and the local community,” Judson said.

Are there enough clean energy jobs to replace those being lost?
Governments are more likely to step in with "just transition" plans where they have been responsible for plant closures in the first place. This is the case for California, Germany and Spain, all moving aggressively to decarbonize their energy sectors and pursue net-zero emissions policy goals.

Some companies are beginning to take a more proactive approach to helping their workers with the transition. German energy giant Uniper, for example, is working with authorities to save jobs by seeking to turn coal plants into lower-emissions gas-fired units.

Germany’s coal phaseout will force Uniper to shut down 1.5 gigawatts of hard-coal capacity by 2022, but the company has said it is looking at "forward-looking" options for its plants that "will be geared toward tomorrow's energy world and offer long-term employment prospects."

Christine Bossak, Uniper’s manager of external communications, told GTM this approach would be adopted in all the countries where Uniper operates coal plants.

Job losses are usually inevitable when a plant is closed, Bossak acknowledged. “But the extent of the reduction depends on the alternative possibilities that can be created at the site or other locations. We will take care of every single employee, should he or she be affected by a closure. We work with the works council and our local partners to find sustainable solutions.”

Diana Junquera Curiel, energy industry director for the global union federation IndustriALL, said such corporate commitments looked good on paper — but the level of practical support depends on the prevailing political sentiment in a country, as seen in Germany's nuclear debate over climate strategy.

Even in Spain, where the closure of coal plants was being discussed 15 years ago, a final agreement had to be rushed through at the last minute upon the arrival of a socialist government, Junquera Curiel said. An earlier right-wing administration had sat on the plan for eight years, she added.

The hope is that heel-dragging over just transition programs will diminish as the scale of legacy plant closures grows.

Nuclear industry facing a similar challenge as coal
One reason why government support is so important is there's no guarantee a burgeoning clean energy economy will be able to absorb all the workers losing legacy generation jobs. Although the construction of renewable energy projects requires large crews, it often takes no more than a handful of people to operate and maintain a wind or solar plant once it's up and running, Junquera Curiel observed.

Meanwhile, the job losses are unlikely to slow. In Europe, Austria and Sweden both closed their last coal-fired units recently, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity in key markets.

In the U.S., the Energy Information Administration's base-case prediction is that coal's share of power generation will fall from 24 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2050, while nuclear's will fall from 20 percent to 12 percent over that time horizon. The EIA has long underestimated the growth trajectory of renewables in the mix; only in 2020 did it concede that renewables will eventually overtake natural gas as the country's largest source of power.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has predicted that even a coronavirus-inspired halt to renewables is unlikely to stop a calamitous drop in coal’s contribution to U.S. generation.

The nuclear sector faces a similar challenge as coal, albeit over a longer timeline. Last year saw the nuclear industry starting to lose capacity worldwide in what could be the beginning of a terminal decline, highlighted by Germany's shutdown of its last three reactors in 2023. Last week, the Indian Point Energy Center closed permanently after nearly half a century of cranking out power for New York City.*

“Amid ongoing debates over whether to keep struggling reactors online in certain markets, the industry position would be that governments should support continued operation of existing reactors and new build as part of an overall policy to transition to a sustainable clean energy system,” said Jonathan Cobb, senior communication manager at the World Nuclear Association.

If this doesn’t happen, plant workers will be hoping they can at least get a Diablo Canyon treatment. Based on the progress of just transition plans so far, that may depend on how they vote just as much as who they work for.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Global Renewable LCOE Trends reveal offshore wind costs down 32%, with 10MW turbines, lower CAPEX and OPEX, and parity for solar PV and onshore wind in Europe, China, and California, per BloombergNEF analysis.

Key Points

Benchmarks showing falling LCOE for offshore wind, onshore wind, and solar PV, driven by larger turbines and lower CAPEX

✅ Offshore wind LCOE $78/MWh; $53-64/MWh in DK/NL excl. transmission

✅ Onshore wind $47/MWh; solar PV $51/MWh, best $26-36/MWh

✅ Cost drivers: 10MW turbines, lower CAPEX/OPEX, weak China demand

World offshore wind costs have fallen 32% from just a year ago and 12% compared with the first half of 2019, according to a BNEF long-term outlook from BloombergNEF.

In its latest Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) Update, BloombergNEF said its current global benchmark LCOE estimate for offshore wind is $78 a megawatt-hour.

“New offshore wind projects throughout Europe, including the UK's build-out, now deploy turbines with power ratings up to 10MW, unlocking CAPEX and OPEX savings,” BloombergNEF said.

In Denmark and the Netherlands, it expects the most recent projects financed to achieve $53-64/MWh excluding transmission.

New solar and onshore wind projects have reached parity with average wholesale power prices in California and parts of Europe, while in China levelised costs are below the benchmark average regulated coal price, according to BloombergNEF.

The company's global benchmark levelized cost figures for onshore wind and PV projects financed in the last six months are at $47 and $51 a megawatt-hours, underscoring that renewables are now the cheapest new electricity option in many regions, down 6% and 11% respectively compared with the first half of 2019.

BloombergNEF said for wind this is mainly down to a fall in the price of turbines – 7% lower on average globally compared with the end of 2018.

In China, the world’s largest solar market, the CAPEX of utility-scale PV plants has dropped 11% in the last six months, reaching $0.57m per MW.

“Weak demand for new plants in China has left developers and engineering, procurement and construction firms eager for business, and this has put pressure on CAPEX,” BloombergNEF said.

It added that estimates of the cheapest PV projects financed recently – in India, Chile and Australia – will be able to achieve an LCOE of $27-36/MWh, assuming competitive returns for their equity investors.

Best-in-class onshore wind farms in Brazil, India, Mexico and Texas can reach levelized costs as low as $26-31/MWh already, the research said.

Programs such as the World Bank wind program are helping developing countries accelerate wind deployment as costs continue to drop.

BloombergNEF associate in the energy economics team Tifenn Brandily said: “This is a three- stage process. In phase one, new solar and wind get cheaper than new gas and coal plants on a cost-of- energy basis.

“In phase two, renewables reach parity with power prices. In phase three, they become even cheaper than running existing thermal plants.

“Our analysis shows that phase one has now been reached for two-thirds of the global population.

“Phase two started with California, China and parts of Europe. We expect phase three to be reached on a global scale by 2030.

“As this all plays out, thermal power plants will increasingly be relegated to a balancing role, looking for opportunities to generate when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Biden Clean Energy Plan 2035 accelerates carbon-free electricity with renewables, nuclear, hydropower, and biomass, invests $2T in EVs, grid and energy efficiency, and tightens fuel economy standards beyond the Clean Power Plan.

Key Points

A $2T U.S. climate plan for carbon-free power by 2035, boosting renewables, nuclear, EVs, efficiency, and grid upgrades.

✅ Targets a zero-carbon electric grid nationwide by 2035

✅ Includes renewables, nuclear, hydropower, and biomass in standard

✅ Funds EVs, grid modernization, weatherization, and fuel economy rules

This month the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, Joe Biden, outlined an ambitious plan, including Biden’s solar plan to expand clean energy, for tackling climate change that shows how far the party has shifted on the issue since it controlled the White House.

President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan had called for the electricity sector to cut its carbon pollution 32 percent by 2030, and did not lay out a trajectory for phasing out oil, coal or natural gas production.

This year, Democratic 2020 hopefuls such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went much further, suggesting the United States should derive all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, moving to 100% renewables as part of a $16.3 trillion plan to wean the nation away from fossil fuels. Many other congressional Democrats have embraced the Green New Deal — the nonbinding resolution calling for a carbon-free power sector by 2030 and more energy efficient buildings and vehicles, along with a massive investment in electric vehicles and high-speed rail.

Last year, 38 percent of U.S. electricity generated came from clean sources, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and in April renewables hit a record 28% nationwide.

Biden’s new plan, which carries a price tag of $2 trillion, would eliminate carbon emissions from the electric sector by 2035, impose stricter gas mileage standards, fund investments to weatherize millions of homes and commercial buildings, and upgrade the nation’s transportation system. To reach its 2035 carbon-free electricity goal, the campaign includes wind, solar and several forms of energy, acknowledging why the grid isn’t yet 100% renewable while balancing reliability, that are not always counted in state renewable portfolio standards, such as nuclear, hydropower and biomass.

“A great appeal of the Biden proposal is that it is much closer to targeting carbon directly, which is the ultimate enemy, and plays fewer favorites with particular technologies,” said Michael Greenstone, who directs the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute. “This will reduce the costs to consumers and give more carbon bang for the buck.”

But some environmentalists, such as Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica, question the idea of including more controversial carbon-free technologies. “There is no role for nuclear in a least-cost, low carbon world. Including these dinosaurs in a clean energy standard is going to incentivize industry efforts to keep aging, dangerous facilities online,” Pica said in an email.

Hydropower, which relies on a system of moving water that constantly recharges, is defined as renewable by the Environmental Protection Agency. Biomass is often considered as carbon neutral because even though it releases carbon dioxide when it is burned, the plants capture nearly the same amount of CO2 while growing.

Both forms of energy have come under fire for their environmental impacts, however. Damming streams and rivers can destroy fish habitat and make it more difficult for them to spawn, and it also seems unlikely that hydropower will expand its current 6 percent share of the nation’s electrical grid.

Many experts argue that classifying biomass energy as carbon neutral provides an incentive to cut down trees that would otherwise remain standing and sequester carbon. “If burning this wood were good for the climate, then we should not recycle paper, we should burn it,” noted Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.

Illinois lead the nation in the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power

More than half of the country — 30 states, Washington, and three territories — have adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and seven states and one territory have set renewable energy goals. While 14 states, along with the District, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, have established requirements of 50 percent or more carbon-free electricity, nearly as many have set theirs at 15 percent or less.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D), who has called for 100% renewable electricity in the state, has pushed clean electricity aggressively since taking office in 2019, lifting a wind energy moratorium imposed by her predecessor and signing bills aimed at expanding the state’s carbon-free energy sources. Biomass accounts for a quarter of the state’s electricity, more than any other state.

New York has one of the country’s most ambitious climate targets, which it scaled up last year. It aims to obtain 70 percent of its power from renewable sources within a decade, a period when renewables surpassed coal in U.S. generation, and eliminate carbon altogether by 2040, even as the state is in the process of shutting down a major nuclear plant near New York City, Indian Point, which is slated to cease operating on April 30, 2021.

... while other states are weakening theirs

Last year, Ohio weakened its renewable energy standard from a target of 12.5 percent in 2027 to 8.5 percent by 2026, even as renewables topped coal nationwide for the first time in over a century, without setting any future goals, and jettisoned its energy efficiency standard. West Virginia — which established modest renewable requirements in 2009 — repealed them altogether in 2015, the year they were set to take effect.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

WA $600 Electricity Credit supports households with power bills as a budget stimulus, delivering an automatic rebate via Synergy and Horizon, funded by the Bell Group settlement to aid COVID-19 recovery and local spending.

Key Points

A one-off $600 power bill credit for all Synergy and Horizon residential accounts, funded by the Bell Group settlement.

✅ Automatic, not means-tested; applied to Synergy and Horizon accounts.

✅ Can offset upcoming bills or carry forward to future statements.

✅ Funded by Bell Group payout; aims to ease cost-of-living pressures.

Washington Premier Mark McGowan has announced more than a million households will receive a $600 electricity credit on their electricity account before their next bill.

The $650 million measure will form part of Thursday's pre-election state budget, similar to legislation to lower electricity rates in other jurisdictions, which has been delayed since May because of the pandemic and will help deflect criticism by the opposition that Labor hasn't done enough to stimulate WA's economy.

Mr McGowan made the announcement on Sunday while visiting a family in the electorate of Bicton.

"Here in WA, our state is in the best possible position as we continue our strong recovery from COVID-19, but times are still tough for many West Australians, and there is always more work to do," he said.

"[The credit] will mean WA families have a bit of extra money available in the lead up to Christmas.

"But I have a request, if this credit means you can spend some extra money, use it to support our local WA businesses."

The electricity bill credit will be automatically applied to every Synergy or Horizon residential account from Sunday, echoing moves such as reconnections for nonpayment by Hydro One in Canada.

It can be applied to future bills and will not be means tested.

"The $600 credit is fully funded through the recent Bell Group settlement, for the losses incurred in the Bell Group collapse in the early 1990s," Mr McGowan said.

"It made sense that these funds go straight back to Western Australians."

In September, the liquidator for the Bell Group and its finance arm distributed funds to its five major creditors, including $670 million to the WA government. The payment marked the close of the 30-year battle to recover taxpayer funds squandered during the WA Inc era of state politics.

The payout is the result of litigation stemming from the 1988 partnership between then Labor government and entrepreneur Alan Bond in acquiring major interests in Robert Holmes à Court’s failing Bell Group, following the 1987 stock market crash.

WA shadow minister for cost of living, Tony Krsticevic, said the $600 credit was returning money back into West Australian's pockets from "WA Labor's darkest days".

“This is taxpayers’ money out of a levy which was brought in to pay for Labor’s scandalous WA Inc losses of $450 million in the 1980s,” he said.

“This money should be returned to West Australians.

“WA families are in desperate need of it because they are struggling under cost of living increases of $850 every year since 2017 under WA Labor, amid concerns elsewhere that an electricity recovery rate could lead to higher hydro bills.

“But they need more than just a one-off payment. These $850 cost of living increases are an on-going burden.”

Prior to the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, the opposition believed it was gaining traction by attacking the government's increases to fees and charges in its first three budgets, and by urging an electricity market overhaul to favor consumers.

Last year, Labor increased household fees and charges by $127.77, which came on top of increases over the prior two budgets, as other jurisdictions faced hydro rate increases of around 3 per cent.

According the state's annual report on its finances released in September, the $2.6 billion budget surplus forecast in the at the end of 2019 had been reduced by $920 million to $1.7 billion despite the impact of the coronavirus.

But total public sector net debt was at $35.4 billion, down from the $36.1 billion revision at the end of 2019 in the mid-year review.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News