It’s GenCost season again, where outrageous claims are made, seemingly cemented in fact and buttressed against criticism by the historical good name of the CSIRO.

Every year the circus reconvenes to push the narrative that a high renewables system is the cheapest possible option, and every year the realisation dawns on more people that this is wrong.

I’ve been involved in reviewing and discussing GenCost since its first edition back in 2018-19. The email extract below is one example and the responses from author Paul Graham were equally enlightening and disappointing.

I’m sure there are plenty of similar examples of obvious questions sent to Mr Graham by experienced people scratching their heads at the methodology, assumptions, and conclusions.

In a more carefree time, I would be more likely to brush off GenCost as irrelevant, but like the red-pilling of comedian David Hughes who has suddenly become Albo’s social media nightmare, the energy debate has burned away any goodwill I had for these bureaucrats.

In my opinion, these organisations have tipped the scales in favour of renewables, and I believe the examples below show this.

CSIRO’s GenCost uses unrealistic high-capacity factors to favour renewables, while loading coal (and nuclear) with unrealistic cost assumptions. Put together, it could be said that these inputs effectively prop up the renewables narrative.

AEMO’s ISP is sold as ‘cheapest path’, but in reality, only fits new transmission projects to the federal government’s 82 per cent renewables energy target, excluding any attempt at a baseline cost analysis for comparisons.

AER’s DMO methodology has been altered to eke out small gains for consumers by squeezing retailers to the brink.

AEMC modified the National Electricity Objective (basically the energy bureaucracy’s constitution) to effectively elevate emissions reduction above cost and reliability.

Chris Bowen’s battery subsidy is helping the wealthy opt out of contributing to the electricity system while the electricity system is growing larger and more expensive and is pouring billions into the Chinese supply chain. The head of the AEMC recently said on a podcast that they don’t understand how retailers can stay in business.

Despite all the attention given to GenCost (yes, I can see the irony!), to my knowledge no developer is consulting GenCost to check if their new wind farm is costing too much, and no retailer is using it as due diligence on their new solar contract. It is my view that GenCost is entirely a fabrication of the green bubble infecting our energy bureaucracy. It’s a Canberra specialty.

Let’s be clear – every federal and state government policy (notably excluding Queensland since June 2025) is pushing in the same direction. The effects on electricity bills are obvious, and it is remarkable the system has remained as reliable as it has for so long. This is thanks almost entirely to the amount of baseload coal-fired generation we still have in the system.

In the coming years, the folly of treating energy supply will expose New South Wales and Victoria. The former is concerned about Eraring Power Station whose owner (Origin Energy) has a closure date of August 2027 in the 2025 annual report. The latter is desperate to hang onto Yallourn Power Station which is still called on daily to produce its maximum output.

We can all acknowledge that a private company cannot be forced to run an asset at a loss – these companies are allowed to close a loss-making asset. But blackouts are not acceptable for a state’s energy minister, despite the calls of academics interviewed by the ABC.

It is difficult to find a polite adjective to accurately describe my opinion of this line of thinking.

There are two parallel realities competing for supremacy. The first reality is where physics and economics intersect in our power bills. We see it, we are concerned about it, but those who are supposed to know the details continuously reassure us that costs are going down.

This is the second reality, a narrative spun by the media, the politicians, the bureaucracies, the corporations, and the academics – I refer to them collectively as The Essential Class and The Essentials never have to worry about going without.

You may think it ridiculous to imagine gated communities with continuous low-cost electricity only accessible by swipe card. A swipe card granted on condition you don’t speak up or challenge the narrative. Those who do ask questions have their swipe card access revoked, their lanyards rendered useless. Without it you pay full price and get what’s left after The Essentials have met their needs.

I suggest a light-weight version of this is already occurring and that without serious change a much darker dystopia is inevitable.

The post Australia’s inevitable energy dystopia appeared first on The Spectator Australia.