New South Wales pricing regulator IPART has made good on plans to slash rooftop solar tariff almost by half, ignoring concerns the cut would penalise the state’s solar households for their role in helping to bring power prices down.
In a final decision published on Tuesday, IPART said it had set the state’s feed-in tariff benchmark at between 6.9-8.4c/kWh for the period of 2018/19, down from 11.9-15c/kWh.
The 44 per cent reduction in the price retailers are recommended to pay NSW solar households for their rooftop PV exports – it serves only to guide retailers, and is entirely voluntary – was first flagged by IPART in March.
And in an update published in May, IPART justified the proposed tariff cut by reasoning that wholesale electricity prices were forecast to fall in the coming financial year, partly because of the impact of rooftop solar, and so solar payments should, too.
This argument was reiterated by IPART on Tuesday, as it cut the price even further.
“We set the benchmark range based on our forecast of the average price that retailers would pay for solar exports across the day (weighted by solar output) if they were buying this electricity on the wholesale spot market,” IPART said.
“We consider that this is reasonable, and that a higher benchmark would lead to unacceptable outcomes.
“Specifically, if retailers were required to pay more than this for solar exports, they would be paying more than they pay for wholesale electricity on the NEM.
“As a result, retail prices for all customers would need to be higher to recover the difference,” it said.
How much? IPART says if the feed-in tariff was doubled , it could add around $19 a year to the bills of average households, or around 5c a day. But typically, it does not calculate the benefits that increased solar cold have on lowering prices.
And the regulator denies claims that cutting the tariff will effectively punish the state’s 10 per cent of solar households for the contribution they have made to shifting peaks, cutting network costs and reducing wholesale power prices for all consumers.
In fact IPART disagrees with that notion, instead taking the line that solar exports are not likely to provide system-wide net benefits for networks, and in some cases – on some parts of the grid – were more likely to do the opposite.
“Solar panels do have the potential to create network benefits by deferring network expenditure where it reduces demand on the network at peak times, but this is likely to be the case only in limited parts of the network,” the July report said.
“In many parts of the network, solar exports are unlikely to contribute to meeting peak demand on the distribution and transmission networks because the peak occurs in the late afternoon when the proportion of exports is very low.
“In these areas, solar exports are unlikely to defer network costs. In other areas, large volumes of solar exports are driving higher network costs due to additional investment required to support the bi-directional flows of electricity to handle the volume of solar exports,” IPART said.
“In summary, the benefits of solar depend on the particular location in the network, and as a result recent reviews by the AEMC and the Victorian Essential Services Commission (ESC) both concluded that potential network benefits are too variable between location, across times, and between years to be well suited for remuneration via a broad-based tariff.
“We consider that solar customers should be treated like any other generator in the competitive electricity market, which means that they take or pay the market price – and are not otherwise compensated or penalised for their impact on these prices,” the report said.
As we noted in May, this seems to fly in the face of a move by Ausgrid to encourage more rooftop solar in its network so that it can deflect network upgrades.
IPART’s line also stands it apart from its counterpart in Victoria, which was asked to include both a social price of carbon in its tariffs.
Green groups and solar advocates have reacted angrily to the decision, describing it as “daylight robbery” a big step in the wrong direction.
“The decision to cut the feed-in tariff punishes solar owners, it’s like getting a pay cut for working overtime,” said Solar Citizens senior campaigner Shani Tager in emailed comments on Tuesday.
Tager cites research commissioned by Solar Citizens that shows NSW solar households cut at least $2.2 billion off the wholesale price of power for everybody in the state in just one year.
“Solar owners have been doing the heavy lifting, keeping the lights on in NSW during heatwaves and cutting power prices for everybody, it’s time that the many benefits of rooftop solar are recognised,” she said.
“Letting big energy retailers off the hook and allowing them to make a profit from the hard work of solar owners is daylight robbery that won’t end until the government steps in.
“The buck stops with the NSW government, they should use their power to intervene and set a fair price for solar that takes into account the wholesale price of power as well as the social and environmental benefits of rooftop solar.
“Slashing the feed-in tariff sends absolutely the wrong message to households in NSW who would like to go solar,” said Tager.
The NSW Greens also pointed the finger at the state government, describing the tariff cut as is a direct result of the its failure to instruct IPART to assess the true value of solar power.
They say the tariff cut is a major step in the wrong direction, particularly for a state that – as we reported here – relies on coal generation more than any other grid in the world, and has also been Australia’s biggest net importer of electricity, a new report has found.
“If the NSW government are serious about supporting renewable energy then they should be change the criteria to assess solar feed-in tariffs to recognise the multitude of benefits solar energy brings,” Greens MP Tamara Smith said on Tuesday.
“NSW should be ensuring that electricity retailers pay a fair price for the solar electricity that is fed into the grid from roof top systems, which takes into account the avoided health and carbon costs solar brings by reducing the amount of fossil fuels that are burnt.
“Unless the NSW government steps in then this decision will be a huge hit to the electricity bills of over 400,000 households and businesses that have installed solar panels in NSW and will act as a disincentive to further uptake of solar panels.
“Solar power is working to even out demand peaks and reduce electricity prices. Households and businesses should be rewarded for this service, not penalised for the benefit of big coal.
“The Greens recognise that solar power leads to cleaner air, reduced carbon emissions and cheaper electricity. The uptake of solar power should be encouraged and that is why the Greens have introduced a Bill into the NSW Parliament to ensure a minimum, fair price for solar.”
Where the state government did exercise its influence was in the introduction of time-dependent solar feed-in tariff benchmark ranges, which was also confirmed by IPART on Tuesday (see table below).
This “specifically requested” change, the report explains, means retailers “could choose to offer a tariff that varies depending on the time of day the solar customer exports to the grid.”
And while IPART argues there is little measurable value of solar to the grid, these time-dependent price ranges serve to place a value on battery storage – or stored solar power.
“Even though solar exports are very low after 5pm, we set benchmarks in the later afternoon and evening because wholesale prices are highest at this time,” IPART said.
“Currently, customers have a limited ability to respond to a high feed-in tariff in the very late afternoon because there is limited sunlight at this time. However, these benchmarks provide a price signal to customers with batteries, or considering purchasing batteries, about when they should export their energy to the grid.
“Only around 1,600 households in NSW currently have batteries, representing less than 0.1 per cent of households. But over time this signal will become more important as battery prices fall and their uptake increases,” the report says.
Sophie is editor of One Step Off The Grid and deputy editor of its sister site, Renew Economy. Sophie has been writing about clean energy for more than a decade.
This post was published on July 4, 2018 10:11 am
People who live in apartments are less likely to benefit from solar power or efficient…
Australia falls out of global top 10 solar countries. Plus: GridBeyond's Michael Phelan on the…
New Zealand company unveils plans to start making its new-look lead acid home batteries in…
Singaporean solar manufacturer launches new line of rooftop solar panels featuring a unique cell design…
Huge demand sees another $6 million added to the budget for the Battery Booster rebate,…
Australian households could save $9.3 billion on energy bills each year by investing in the…
View Comments
“In many parts of the network, solar exports are unlikely to contribute to meeting peak demand on the distribution and transmission networks because the peak occurs in the late afternoon when the proportion of exports is very low.”
Wow, so IPART have no corporate memory of when peak demand was in the middle of the day, since reduced by guess what? Rooftop solar. They have no way of estimating the contribution of Behind the Meter (BTM) PV to understand their peak demand graphs in that context?
We need a service that has a database of installed capacity behind the meter PV with associated postcode data (available from publicly listed STC records via the RECs API) and a pool of systems that output representative data (either live or delayed) for each postcode (openPV.org) and mash the data together to show exactly what BTW PV is contributing to the grid each day. Then we can add that into openNEM.org.au info-graphics to get this information more widely circulated and understood.
Solar was o my cheap because it's subsidised. Green energy in fact is heavily subsidised. Now solar won't be so viable. Electricity is looking better. Schould have built that coal fired power station
Incorrect-fossil fuel subsidies are the biggest subsidies in this country by a mile.Solar output has pushed prices down for all electricity consumers in daylight hours-and even into negative territory recently in Qld!!! Current reverse auctions for electricity are won by solar and wind from new installations- cheaper than ANY other source of electrcity,including old paid off fossil clunkers.If you are hung up on suubsidies also check out the indirect subsidy given to fossil fuel generators by the failure to include the true environmental costs of their generation-huge costs that are borne by the rest of society-health care,agriculture and the individual victims of lung disease asthma etc
MrMauricio, you're 100% correct here! Well done for pointing out the facts. It continues to amaze me how so many lies are trotted out about FF being cheaper that RE. These people never consider the cost externalities such as the health and environmental damage created by FFs. But then again, the media from whence they get their news has never reported these facts either. :-(
The Rupert & cheer squad never let facts get in the way of lying about how cheap and good Coal / Gas / Oil is and at the same time bash RE as being subsidised and causing all of our power price problems. The punters are either too lazy or just couldn't be bothered in doing a bit of research and fact checkings...much easier to read and believe what Lord Rupert prints or what God Alan says on his little radio show.
IPART really is a joke.
How come we aren't laughing?
Rooftop solar exports have no "environmental" benefits. Those were sold when STCs were created for the installation of the system and used to reduce the upfront price. You can't have your cake and eat it.
If you don't believe you are getting fair value for your export, then you should install a battery.
incorrect.The environmental benefits not included in RECS (CO2 abatement saving) Other savings not included in recs include zero health damage and lifespan reduction in the air pollution catchments of fossil generators,,zero mercury and other heavy metal deposition on land and in waterways and lakes,zero fly ash disposal and zero water diverted from agriculture ecological flow and zero heat emissions at source.
Unfortunately the subsidies you speak of include fbt inclusions that people claim to and from work etc. It includes taxes to find gas etc there's a lit of things in that mix. The sad thing is that we spend 3 billion a year on an energy that dosent cut the mustard like a coal fired power station can. We had cheap power and the govt. Has applied taxes to coal to make it more expensive to fund green energy that really is no good on a dull day or a winless day. On top of that people put solar on their home and pay more to try and save money. Now your Return on investment will be worse. Hell don't get me started on batteries. That's a worse Return than anything
That's total tosh.
Renewables receiving very little. STCs to support the RET.
While coal gets $7 billion in fuel excise rebate alone, and pays nothing for all the public health and environmental damage it causes.
Best estimate of actual cos was around $42 billion. A hidden subsidy, but a subsidy nonetheless.
Investment in home solar pats for itself in 4 years. Maybe a bit longer now that NSW gas slashed Feed in Tarrifs, but I pay less now for power plus loan repayments than for powere alone prior to getting solar.
So take your lies and go jump down a coal mine.
Buy solar panels. You get a rebate. Have solar on your roof. You get a rebate. Build a solar farm and get a massive rebate. Wind turbine rebate. Wind turbine in someone's farm. A massive rebate. And all this energy isn't efficient. Solar panels are what 21%efficient. That's the best panels and pay a fortune for them even with a rebate. Batteries cost a fortune and ladt ten years or so.
We have the best burning coal in the world. It can run a nation and darn cheaply to. China builds coal fired power station . Lots of them. They are top of the pole economically. They use our gas. Which labor sold them cheaply and never left enough for domestic use. They use our coal and they have cheap and now clean power. They shut down their brown coal polluting power stations and built new ones . You would think if they are doing so well and we aren't. We would copy what they are doing. But hey . We know better right just got an add for solar. Generous government rebates. How about that
Coal and Fossil Fuels damage people health and causes premature deaths. Fossil Fuels damages the environment. You know what the environment is don't you, its the thing that we all rely on to survive here on Planet Earth. But hey, all of that is no reason to stop government subsidies for business as usual FF burning. Your rebates for solar are slowly disappearing but not so the subsidies for FF, on and on and on it goes. If the choice to subsidise an energy source is between FF or RE...its a no brainer.
You know what's damaging the environment?. It's us. Don't even go there with the environment. F2f are the resin we exist. Green energy will not power a nation. Manufacturing cannot run on green power. The sun dint shine at night and the wind don't blow at times. And green energy is to dam expensive. 5 million a windmill. You want to see environment damage. Go visit bushland near a housing development. Litter infected water. Don't get me started. Fgs are the environments least problem
"Manufacturing cannot run on green power"....perhaps you should have a quiet word with Sanjeev Gupta and also the many Aussie businesses that are installing or have already installed the green power to do their business Do yourself a favour, do some research before you scribble away with your nonsense.
Sanjeev Gupta built a solar farm. Great for night time. And he did it for the rebate . Plus the money per kilawatt. Some factories don't shut their doors at 4 pm. And batteries just don't cut it. Unless of course you have a zillion of them. Then it's just to expensive. Maybe it's you who needs to research. If green was the go. China would be 100% renewable. Instead they build coal fired power stations to drive their economy and sell solar to us. Clever people those Chinese . That's why their number one. Now when all the rebates have gone from solar. Noone will buy it. .
Silly man, silly scribbles
Joe. Use some facts instead of dribble
"zillion" "just too expensive" "China is number one" yeah thats some solid facts you got there
Well China is way better off than us. You want facts. China's economy has been booming at over 8% for years. China builds coal fired power stations by the dozen. They have cheap power. That's what drives their industry. But we know better here. Well spend thousands on green energy that can't run a country. Ie South Australia without Eion Musk that is. The state went black and power prices rose.
You have a novel understandingof the concept of facts, Mark. Very novel.
What facts are they. The ACCC is now saying that the way we are generating electricity is not viable and won't see us into the future. That's fact. Green energy can't do it alone. We need coal now to lower prices and give us a reliable cost effectivebsorce of power.
I think you may be misinterpreting the ACCC statement. It is the coal generation that is not viable.
Your previous post implied that the SA big blackout was caused by its high penetration of wind power.
That is plain wrong.
It was caused by high winds blowing down not the wind turbines , but the pylons carrying the main interconnector from Victoria, and a number of market operation settings that have since been adjusted. The final factor that might have averted the blackout but did not, was the Pelican Point gas peaker that could and should have been fired up, but remained idle.
You maintain that green energy cannot run a country. Tell that to Norway, Costa Rica, New Zealand. Tell Sanjeev Gupta.
An electron is an electron is an electron. The way it is generated does not alter its properties. Put enough of them to heating a blast furnace and you can smelt just as much steel from wind power as from coal, or nuclear, or solar. The source has no impact on the effectiveness of the product.
Now be a good lad and try to learn from what you read here, in preference to what you hear from the coal lobby and its lackeys.
All that is true except you can't run this country on green energy cost effectively. Panels last 25 years batteries 10. A coal fired power station 50 years day and night.
Bring back ford Toyota holden Pacific brands. A heap of others in China or elsewhere and your green energy dies in the butt. They all left due to a number of factors including power prices
Also those countries you spoke of on green power. They share the power. It's not their own green energy. Like sonnen batteries dose
FFS! what planet are you on.?
It doesn't matter which side of a border green power is generated. Borders are a human construct. If some externally generated green power is used to power a whole country, does (note correct spelling) it suddenly become coal fired as it crosses a border?
They say that green enerdy will reach cost parity with coal by 2020. That's in 2 years. Now I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but that means to me that coal was cheaper that green energy. Now you know why ffs. As I've said in all my previous posts. Green energy has been way to expensive and it's not half as efficient. The sun dosent always shine and the wind dosent always blow . Batteries last ten years and are way to expensive. Tried buying one lately. So according to a lot of websites coal has been cheap for years. Way cheaper than wind solar or batteries. Do you get it now
Who is this "They" that you quote? Without a proper citation or a link, such an assertion has no value.
What you need to look at are the July 2018 wholesale prices of power from :-
1. The coal generators
2. Wind farms
3. Solar farms
4. Hydro - eg Snowy 1
5. Diesel generators
6. Gas peakers.
Now you know what to look for. Prices from another year won't do, because renewables have been getting much cheaper, and coal and gas costs have been going up, for years.
Now go away and do some research. Then come back and tell us what you found, and where you found it.
Hint. Anything printed in the Murdoch press or spoken by Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, John Laws, Matt Canavan, Tony Abbott, George Christensen or Craig Kelly is not acceptable as evidence. You will be looking for reports from AEMO, or other reputable reporting agencies.
I think that once you have made the effort to find your information from reliable sources, you will realise the extent of your error.
Get on Google and look for yourself type in what's cheaper coal or green energy. And yes you said it yourself. Green energy is getting cheaper. Meaning in the past it was more expensive. Way more expensive than coal. So the labor government started giving 60 cents in the dollar rebate for solar panels then 40 cents then 20 then 5. Then rebates for solar panel installation. Payment to farmers for putting windmills on their land. They taxes the coal industry then raised the electricity prices to fund it all.. Then at the time a carbon tax. So green energy was expensive. Fact is though after all this time and money if that coal fired power station went down were screwed. It would have been cheaper and a lot less stressful to build a coal fired power station and electricity wouldn't ne 55 cents a kilawatt in peak time. Lastly. Pensioners and the poor can't go out there and spend 4000 dollars on a solar array so they can cut their bills. Those poor people are paying your electricity bill. They are being punished for being poor. Fat load of good your cheaper green energy is doing them. If it's so bloody cheap where's all the factory opening up. Why is small business screaming over the high cost of electricity.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-powerless-to-stop-s-a-price-gouging-14476/
The sun dont always shine and the wind dosent always blow
...and your Coalers dont always burn.
The callers were built after world war 2. There still going updated burning cleaner but not as clean as new ones. 70 friggin years of supplying power to Australia. Your panels or batteries won't last that long. Or supply power to drive a nation. Go on turn on your air con at 7.00 pm and start cooking a roast and watch your batteries cry. Coal dosent have that issue. It's just heavily taxed so green energy looks cheap. Build one new coal fired power station and it will feed 2 states. Green energy won't be viable for 30 more years or until the government stops the subsidies and prices drop so low that they become a giveaway item. But batteries are still way to overpriced and can't supply a households needs unless your spending thousands
This is very interesting.
You cannot spell, cannot punctuate, clearly know nothing about cooking, or about sensible use of air-con, but expect to be taken seriously on issues of energy production. You do not even know anything about the output of the coal fired power stations you are so committed to. Power two states, indeed! State of poor health, and state of destruction, perhaps.
I suspect that your preferred source of information are the Murdoch media, with heavy reliance on Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, an perhaps Mark Latham.
Sorry, Mark, but with every post you dig yourself deeper into your hole of pathetic ignorance. Every statement you make is flat out wrong, and there is reams of evidence to prove that.
Do yourself a favour, and start to read the articles in this newsletter with a willingness to learn, and read the replys to your comments in the same spirit.
There is absolutely no defense for your position.
Hi Hettie, our Marky isn't going too well is he. Clearly he just gobbles up opinions from the usual suspects like those that you mentioned and regurgitates them as facts to then come onto Renew Economy and scribble his nonsense.
All that cheap solar you have is only cheap because of a tax on co2. That's fact. A coal fired power station goes down and South Australia needs diesel generators to power their state. That's more fact. All that money on green energy and hey it falls short of powering a state let alone a nation. Power prices will rise when there there are no coal fired power stations left. That is also fact. You can spend 15000 on green energy and you will still need to suck of the grid on dull days or heavy usage days. What a waste. Coal dose not have these issues.
Are you not aware that the Carbon Price was abolished in 2013?
So over your ignorance and stupidity.
Blocking you now.
Ever heard of the Paris agreement
Marky boyo, do your yourself a favour and give it up for the time being. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. But there is an answer to your problem, you can do some research of FACTS and not of opinions. Do YOUR research before you scribble anymore of your your foolish nonsense. Otherwise you make yourself look like a goose which is totally unnecessary but I guess its your choice which direction you want to go in.
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/coal-versus-renewables-what- price on carbon was meant to make coal more expensive to fundyou-need-to-know/8269964
Note as it says. Coal is mote expensive in a new plant due to a price on carbon. So there you go. The
Co2 price on carbon was meant to make coal more expensive and fund renewables so they look cheaper. Oh and to raise electricity prices as well. And make poor people poorer.
More of your rubbish...panels and batteries do not magically die after your 25 / 10 years numbers. Do some research before you nonsensically scribble.
Oh ok Joe. So the coal fired power station is down for maintainence and South Australia need to fire up the diesel generators to keep the lights on. Might have wasted all thst money on renewables if they can't handle the pace. Solar panels have a 25 year life. They are less efficient after that and proably need replacing. Talk to the manufacturer. They'll tell you so. Same for batteries after 10 years. Again call the manufacturer. Go on. Do some research for yourself
First of all, most times when a coaler goes out of service, it is because it has failed suddenly. Frequently because of heat, but not always. There were 59 such sudden failures this year, so far, none of them because of scheduled maintenance. That can be planned for, just as weather unfavourable to renewables can be planned for.
As to your other claims, are you not aware that many solar panels installed 40 years ago are still going strong?
They are not as efficient as newer ones, because the technology has progressed in leaps and bounds, but still produce a healthy percentage of their original output.
Battery life is measured in cycles, not time. Most are guaranteed for the number of cycles likely in 10 years, true, but the guarantee is that they will retain 80 or 90% of their original capacity at ten years. Experience shows that the rate of degradation thereafter is similarly slow - a loss of around 1% or 2% of capacity a year.
The return on investment to be expected from rooftop solar is around 25%. That depends on the choice if retailer because prices and Feed in Tarrifs vary widely. So that is very cost effective. Batteries are still not quite cost effective, but the price is coming down, and power prices continue to be pushed up by coal/gas gentailers gaming the system. Soon battery storage to cover the dark hours of one day will make economic sense.
Like so many coal lovers on these pages, you let your prejudice blind you to reality.
Do not expect those of us who are keeping up with the science and economics of Renewables to be convinced by your foolishness. Because that's what it is. Foolishness.
Oh your so full of it. Like I said. Billion a spent on green energy and South Australia needs diesel back up generators to keep the lights on. Very friggin expensive science that's failing people. That's my point. You turn on your dusted heating or cooling outlining 3 kwts an hour and your batteries shit themselves. Might be ok during the day if you have 10 kwts on your roof that cost you 8000 dollars. Shit loose change I guess. Build a new coal fired power plant and cheap power that's truck loads cleaner than the 1950 power stations we have now.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Really . South Australia generators were running last week to keep the wheels turning. Check it. I even sent the link. So 3 billion a year to use coal as back up. Getting there. Well bring more industry here....lol and the system won't cope. It's not copeing now. Take the co2 tax of coal and green energy is way expensive. Let's get these power bills down so all Australians benefit not just people with solar. Old people and the poor are freezing or boiling due to high prices. No fit no subsidies on green energy and power prices fall and heavily to. But you don't care your just chasing your 20 cents fit
Markie my man, no need for me to do a ring-a-round but you my friend DO so you can research the facts before you scribble your nonsense. You backtracking now on your Solar Panel nonsense scribble but you still got it wrong. The efficiency does 'slowly' go off but they don't need immediate replacing like you make out. Again call the manufacturer. Go on. Do some research for yourself.
Marky Mark, take another look at The ACCC report released yesterday (11/7 ) before you nonsensically scribble away.
David, sadly you are very wrong about batteries. Batteries do not create renewable energy. They are not cost effective as yet. The best way to get the greatest return from PVs is to maximise your installation size (now up to 10kW for single phase, and minimise your imports by using efficiency measures.
Pretty sure if I put renewable energy into a battery I get renewable energy out. I wasn't saying batteries were cheap, I was saying you have a choice.
That's correct, David, but they don't generate renewable energy, just store it, as they can grid electricity. I think we actually agree on this. I'm just being a pedant. :-)
Ipart-part the entrenched system pretending to look indepedent.Havnt noticed RETAIL prices falling!!!....Thanks to the IPART protectionoly they can just pocket more and more.Maybe it would make some sense if connected to the retaill price.The other thing is that externalities like illness and shorter lifespans,mercury pollutin,fly ash disposal and water diversion to cooling from fossil emissions and the damage to the climate are borne by EVERYBODY and ESCAPED by these protected generators
IPART refused to include in its review the fact that there is no finance available to invest in a new coal generator because the costs prohibit a profit. In the past, the State Gov funded generation out of tax payers funds. Without tax payers funds, no new generation. IPART failed to accept that the small gift to new solar installations is a sunk cost. Why not transfer the "gift" into a real payment to generators with small scale renewables?
You have to expect this kind of thing in Australia.
I have 10kW of battery and will get more if I start to export....This is not good for the people...but I hate getting Donald Ducked by Big Power...
Well folks, there is a NSW State electionary in March. This is one more thing to punish stupid Gladys for. It certainly won't win her any votes. And Victoria is moving in quite the opposite direction. Nine months to go.
What we should do is have a solar STRIKE. Pick a hot summer day next season and then turn off all our solar systems, cause a statewide blackout and then see who’s got the power!