What it sounds like is Australia needs negative energy prices during peaks, again arguing for market forces, if you pay people to take electricity (charging people who produce electricity more than you pay people to take, keeping the difference) the "having more electricity than we can use" problem goes away and you don't have to prevent people from hooking up new capacity.
Well regulated markets enable this, charge consumers 0 or even pay them to use energy during the solar maximum, same for industry. People will build storage to make money.
You must have variable pricing driven by markets when you have a lot of variable renewables, fixed rates just don't work. Too much electricity is one of those good problems to have if you manage it correctly. Free or very cheap energy could be a huge competitive advantage for Australia.
It does have negative prices as well as interconnects between most states, but it is risky for consumers (average household) to be exposed to these price swings. I don't like retailers, but they do shield the average consumer to wild swings in prices that could 50x their daily cost.
In 2022, a lot of retailers nearly went under due to the max price of $14.4k per MWh ($14.4 per kWh, which is usually ~$0.25 for households) being sustained for a longer period cause a few producers had the market over a barrel. The federal government needed to step in and restrict the maximum price for gas (despite Australia exporting >10x more than in produces, we still have to buy it at international market rates), which flowed down to gas peakers which during times of lower than expected energy production act as short term stablisers. In this case we had multiple coal plant failures due to their age/poor upkeep, and likely some manipulation by producers.
Your average household doesn't want to have their energy consumption behaviours dictated by a market. We have a national battery program that creates a VPPs (Virtual Power Plant) and other mechanisms to enable households to somewhat benefit from these market prices and theoretically provide stability to the grid, but it is all quite complicated, and suffers from being able to be gamed. There isn't a simple solution when a market is involved because you have a group of people acting in bad faith to extract the most value for a shared resource that relies on shared infrastructure.
If the network and producers were publicly managed (like the electricity networks use to be and still are in some states), the incentives are a lot better aligned with a stable grid that is affordable for the most number of consumers. It still would be complicated, but a bunch of problems would be simplified, likely traded off for other issues.
Well regulated markets enable this, charge consumers 0 or even pay them to use energy during the solar maximum, same for industry. People will build storage to make money.
You must have variable pricing driven by markets when you have a lot of variable renewables, fixed rates just don't work. Too much electricity is one of those good problems to have if you manage it correctly. Free or very cheap energy could be a huge competitive advantage for Australia.