One of the criticisms of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s call for greater competition powers — a call endorsed most vocally by former ACCC head Rod Sims — is that it already has enough powers, and doesn’t use them.
It’s a criticism that might have a little more substance after the regulator’s decision to approve the purchase of Origin Energy by Brookfield and MidOcean.
The ACCC decided that Brookfield’s purchase of Origin’s energy markets business — MidOcean will keep Origin’s gas production business — would be a substantial lessening of competition, the threshold test under competition law. That’s because Brookfield owns nearly half of Ausnet, which dominates electricity transmission in Victoria, as well as a gas distribution business and a smart meter business.
Normally that would mean the ACCC would reject the acquisition, but the substantial lessening of competition test comes with a caveat that an acquisition can be approved if would result in a public benefit greater than the detriment to the public from the lessening of competition. And that’s what the ACCC has decided, because Brookfield’s acquisition of Origin would lead to “an acceleration of renewable generation and storage development for Origin Energy Markets, additional renewable generation and storage development for Origin Energy Markets; and a decrease in Origin Energy Markets’ emission intensity”.
“The ACCC also considers that the proposed acquisition would result, or be likely to result in, an acceleration of renewable generation and storage build-out in Australia, and that this constitutes a public benefit.”
The ACCC is putting a lot of hope in Brookfield’s renewables investment plan. To be fair, there’s some basis for that hope. As the ACCC says, the relevant Brookfield fund that would own Origin is a committed renewables fund that has been marketed to investors on that basis. Failure to follow through with the accelerated transition would be highly damaging to Brookfield’s ability to attract future funds.
The ACCC considers that the nature of the Brookfield Global Transition Fund and Brookfield’s financial, reputational and commercial incentives, in combination with its global renewables expertise and procurement scale advantage, will enable it to increase the speed of the build-out, and favour a completed build-out.
And, yes, it’s noteworthy that this is the first time that the ACCC has determined that an expedited renewables rollout would be sufficient public benefit to justify approving a transaction that lessened competition. But it positions consumers, competitors and business customers of Origin as the potential victims of yet another concentrated market in Australia, of which we already have too many.
Competition, or its dearth, is the biggest problem in the Australian economy, as the staggering extent of greedflation over the past two years has demonstrated, whatever fantasies the Reserve Bank might tell itself.
In effect, the ACCC is telling customers and competitors they have to pay the price for our lost decade on climate policy, that the decade in which the Coalition governed and sat on its hands on climate and the need for the decarbonisation of our energy system must continue to inflict damage despite Labor’s efforts to expedite the transition. They’ll also have to pay the price for the rampant NIMBYism, parochialism and red tape that is plaguing efforts to roll out transmission infrastructure to facilitate a more decentralised renewables and storage grid.
In effect it’s the ACCC saying to governments: “You’re botching this, so we need to artificially encourage the private sector to increase investment.” That’s a big call — and a potentially costly one — when Victorians in, say, 2027 get their power bills. And once the renewable rollout is completed over the course of the next decade, we’ll still be left with a concentrated energy market. There’s no evidence that an oligopoly in renewable energy won’t be just as gouging as one using coal or gas to produce power.
Sounds more like the ACCC has made an argument for nationalising the renewables infrastructure rollout but of course they couldn’t possibly say that. So we get a Utopia style perversion.
You have written two excellent articles in today’s edition of Crikey Bernard. What a pity that we are not allowed to comment on the most important one. There is much more that I could say but I may have already said enough to have my comment removed by the (how would you even describe them?) commissars.
Yes I agree. It is very trying to find so many articles closed for comment before we reach 1 pm.
Yes, MJM and these are articles that relate to the most important, life-and-death global issues of the day. The fact that we are not allowed to discuss them is outrageous. Sure there will be offensive comments made but these can be removed. But what could be more offensive than the horrors that have not only occurred but are also being planned for the Middle East.
Just while I am here (and who knows how long that will be for), there are some very good background articles in today’s edition of John Menadue’s “Pearls and Irritations” on the Middle East situation.
Agree.
The way we subscribers, who pay the wages in the bunker, are treated, not just on this issue but many others, is counterproductive.
A site like John Menadue’s “Pearls and Irritations” is written by, and for, grown-ups, not the self obsessed, ignorant, intolerant, incestuous, inexperienced and poorly poorly educated kiddies who too often lob up here.
While I sympathise, my own posts have been removed when comments on the issue have been turned off, I also saw among the many thoughtful and informed posts that were made an influx of emotive, unfounded and frankly racist comments coming in and the temperature rising. I don’t doubt the good sense and values of Crikey readers and commenters to debunk and condemn these but can also see the dilemma of Crikey as a publisher in not wanting to platform them at all. If they don’t have the resources to personally moderate and edit and have comments set so you and I can immediately publish this to me is an understandable position.
I will say that it has been good to read the critical and insightful articles by Crikey over the last few days. It’s weird when even a measured view based on liberal democratic values is an outlier in political commentary.
Almost not worth reading Crikey if we can’t see the reactions of your readers to the excellent articles.
I will not read articles – on any of a number of topics – which do not allow comments.
If the moral sinews are so weak here how can any articles be trusted as worth a pinch of the proverbial?
To have seen that entire comments threads are purged AFTER being published suggests that the old fallacy “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” – were any in the bunker even aware of it – is entirely misunderstood.
I don’t give a toss who says what anymore. Everyone lies. Since it was all privatised monopolistic price gouging has cost consumers more and more, so now we have about the most expensive (name the service) in the world. Thanks for nothing labor, libs and nats, so much for being for the people. The way battery tech is leapfrogging at the moment it won’t be long before I can afford to go off grid entirely.
What an interesting comment Bref.
Your post is replete with the frustration, cynicism and suspicion that so many of us feel, thanks to this stinking, fetid, toxic economic rationalist system that we are forced to live under. All that matters in this system is the dollar value that can be put on anything and everything. It is no wonder that so many people feel isolated, alienated, and especially so resentful towards the politicians who foisted this grotesque abomination upon us at the behest of the oligarchs and plutocrats who really run the show in any capitalist society, as they knew it would enrich them significantly.
I agree with your sentiments.
One would suggest that avoidance of decarbonisation was apparent in the noughties with imported fossil fueled climate science denial, media tactics e.g. ‘carbon tax’ (used ’90s vs. Clinton) and neo nativist focus on refugees/border security, immigrant/restrictions and ‘sustainable’ population ‘control’ as environmental proxies; didn’t take much to deflect most Australians and crash a few ALP PMs?