Even if AGL sells Liddell for 1c, they would be $500m better...

Even if AGL sells Liddell for 1c, they would be $500m better off. That's because they no longer have to pay the $500m to demolish the plant, remove all the toxic material and waste and rehabilitate the site.

So, 1c and taking on board the site rehabilitation liability and cost seems like a very reasonable proposition.


Now I understand why you think the way you do: its because, by looking at Liddell in isolation, you misunderstand the economics at work here.

AGL wants to establish new generation capacity (gas fired and renewables). To the extent that Liddell ceases to operate, that leaves a nice market gap which AGL's next generation of generation can fill. However, with Liddell still in existence, the pricing outcomes for generators is diminished, due to fundamental supply-demand dynamics.

So, you can't just look at Liddell standalone, when you consider AGL's commercial position.

When viewed holistically across AGL's entire generation portfolio, there is far more value-at-risk than the mere $500m figure you quoted.