Re: misses the point
I think borkbork misses the point, at least as far as Victoria is concerned.
The retail companies are separate from the distribution (LV poles and wires) companies, which are separate from the generating companies (I've left the HV transmission companies out of this model). Admittedly, AGL both own generators (such as the notoriously bad brown coal generators in the Latrobe Valley) and are a retailer.
But a retailer can't "make up for lost revenue" by "increasing the daily supply rate for the grid connection" because the retailer merely passes on the distributor's (regulated) cost - they are separate items on the power bill (even if a quick read of my bill (not AGL) doesn't make it obvious that the supply charge is being collected on behalf of the distributor) . Maybe AGL could arbitrage the cost that it sells its generator output to its retail arm, but I'm not even sure if that is possible under the national energy market despatch model.
I suspect that what AGL might be doing here is building off peak capability, and possiby even peak surge capacity, by storing the solar in people's homes when the sun is shining so that they can tap it when demand is high and the sun isn't shining. With the advantage that the capital is being put up by householders, not the company. And they don't have to pay for warehouses to store the power. And under the gross feed-in model that most people seem to be on, AGL get to charge retail for the power the household uses, but pay wholesale for the power (panels plus battery) that the household sells to them.
Coat icon cos that's how dealing with the retailers feels like - their hand in my pocket