The Turnbull government is facing new demands to give ground on the climate change target that underpins its National Energy Guarantee, as Labor states negotiate a joint position to force changes to the scheme at a crucial meeting next week.
Labor governments in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT are brokering a new list of demands to be unveiled next week to ensure a future federal government has more scope to make deeper cuts to greenhouse gas emissions over the decade ahead.
With the federal policy hanging in the balance, the united stance is aimed at maximising pressure on Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg to go much further than his latest proposal for a review of the target in 2024.
 |
| Minister for Environment and Energy Josh Frydenberg and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen |
Mr Frydenberg revealed the 2024 review as a concession to the states last week but critics have rejected it as meaningless because the terms of reference are not clear and the states have no input into its conduct.
A key sticking point is that there is no stated mechanism in the federal plan to act on the review and increase the government’s commitment to reduce emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 – a target federal Labor wants to increase to 45 per cent.
Fairfax Media has been told Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio are preparing to formalise their negotiating position early next week at cabinet level, while also discussing the joint position with Queensland and the ACT.
The moves come after the government released a final report from the Energy Security Board, the group of Australia’s peak energy regulators, on the case for the new scheme including some of the modelling behind claims of a cut to household bills.
“Stakeholders have been clear with the Energy Security Board that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” said Kerry Schott, the chair of the board, in a message to the states and territories.
“Any delay, or worse a failure to reach agreement, will simply prolong the current investment uncertainty and deny customers more affordable energy."
Dr Schott reiterated the key finding that the average household bill is expected to be $550 lower each year during the 2020s than it is now - $150 of those savings coming from the NEG.
But the report triggered a furious response from some jurisdictions over the modelling, with officials complaining that the document did not contain all the key assumptions behind the claims of a cut to household bills.
Queensland Energy Minister Anthony Lynham has joined Ms D’Ambrosio in expressing concern that the states and territories are being asked to endorse the NEG on August 10, before its support among federal Coalition MPs is tested at a party room meeting in Canberra on August 14.
While the timing dispute focuses on the process to agree on the NEG, the states are still canvassing the matters of substance to demand at the meeting next week, including the rules around the emission targets.
In an influential submission, the Australian Industry Group has called for federal law to set out the terms for the emissions review and allow a future government to amend the 26 per cent target using subordinate legislation.
The business group calls for the law to state explicitly that the review should have regard to Australia’s international commitments at the United Nations, such as the Paris climate change targets.
Ai Group also calls for the review to consider the economy-wide task of reducing emissions – the key problem of whether the NEG should do more to reduce emissions in electricity to spare the burden on farming and other sectors.
“Governments must have the ability to change the targets in a timely way. The 2024 review of emissions targets is in the never-never, and would stall clean energy investment,” he said.
“The rules that need to be defined in the federal legislation to change the target include explicitly stating that the minister must consider Australia has committed to ensuring national targets are stronger through time, changes in technology, and the impact of the target on other sectors and vulnerable households and communities.”
Mr Frydenberg reiterated that the Commonwealth was responsible for the emissions reduction target and would conduct the review to make sure the target remained “appropriate” over the period from 2025 to 2030.
“The review will include public consultation and a report of the review will be published by 30 June 2024,” he said.
While the government remains confident of securing support from a majority of Coalition MPs for the NEG, former prime minister Tony Abbott rubbished the latest report and the modelling that claimed a cut to household bills.
“Well, frankly pigs might fly. This is just wrong,” Mr Abbott told radio station 2GB, adding that renewable energy was not reliable enough.
Grattan Institute energy director Tony Wood said the modelling confirmed earlier advice from the Energy Security Board with some clarity around the assumptions.
“The NEG doesn’t really reduce emissions much by 2030, and if you add the effect of the Victorian Renewable Energy Target and Queensland Renewable Energy Target, it would be even less,” Mr Wood told Fairfax Media.
“For example, without the NEG, renewables will be 34 per cent of the energy mix by 2030 and with the NEG only 36 per cent.
“The real point is that the NEG provides a consistent platform for what will be serious emissions targets later while ensuring that reliability is not adversely affected.”
Ed McManus, the head of generator Meridian Energy and retailer Powershop, said industry was behind the NEG as there was little alternative.
“We’re in the camp of something is better than nothing, and that’s what this policy is,” Mr McManus told Fairfax Media.
“As long as the targets can be increased relatively easily if a later government decides it wants to, we support it, as we think the energy sector should have higher emissions reduction targets.
“The policy itself will work, as long as it is in a form that allows these targets to be increased.”
Links
- Don't forget the 'big picture' says man who could kill energy plan
- 'Nut case stuff': Barnaby Joyce threatens to oppose government's energy policy
- Final Detailed Design of the National Energy Guarantee
- Federal Labor, Experts Call For Full Release Of Energy Plan Modelling
- Government's Energy Plan Would Guarantee A 'Nightmare' Of Complexity
- Electricity Plan Would All But Hit Emissions Goal Before It Starts
- Tender Will Allow Coalition To Dig Its Way Out Of Coal Hole
- Renewables Will Replace Ageing Coal Plants At Lowest Cost, AEMO Says
- Prolong The Life Of Coal-Fired Power Stations In The National Electricity Market, Says Australian Energy Market Operator
- Greenpeace And Getup Launch Campaign To Kill National Energy Guarantee
- National Energy Guarantee 'Clumsy, Inefficient', Says VEPC's Mountain
- Phony Peace? Challenges To Energy Plan Sent Back To Modelling Board
- 'Not A Big Drama' For Electricity Industry To Slash Emissions, Says Scheme Architect
- Victoria Demands New Detailed Analysis On NEG After COAG Meeting
- NEG: A Bipartisan Agreement To Disagree?
No comments:
Post a Comment