In the context of a federal budget that will be worth almost $730 billion next year, $3.5 billion might seem like a drop in the ocean.But in the context of an energy transition that's already racked up quite a few bills, and which is set to cost much more, Bruce Mountain reckons it's money that could have been put to better use.
That's not to mention those consumers who, through no fault of their own, may end up missing out on the financial help anyway. "That money with that sort of leverage could have a much better impact, not just for the affected household to get the gain from the investment in solar and battery, but across the community for the price effects that battery and solar will have, which we know.
In the past few years alone, power bills have risen about 40 per cent on average across the national electricity market, which covers most of the eastern seaboard. "What people tell us they need is support to ensure that the home that they're living in is properly shielded … that it's not costing them more on a bill than they would otherwise be required to pay," Mr French says.
"If the counter to this is that the government is effectively using households for social transfers, then argue the policy in those terms and say what's the economic and public policy value of the way they've done it. And the answer is, it's pretty poor."If, however, it is meant to be an electricity scheme, it's meant to be focused around electricity, then it's an extraordinarily poor way to have spent the money.
That seems particularly clear the closer politicians are to an election, noting that the Queensland, WA and federal governments all face the voters soon enough.