It was announced on August 14 that the proposed expanded renewable energy legislation is likely to be split from the CPRS Bill package. This would enable the renewable energy legislation to be passed by the senate next week,

The Greens have proposed amendments to the bill including a fix for the solar credits bad policy:
“* Fix the problem of ‘phantom renewable energy credits’ created by the solar multiplier and lift the size limit on solar installations;
* Replace the ill-thought-out solar multiplier with a gross national feed-in tariff for all forms of renewable energy;” See http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/webfm_send/202

At the Senate Committee hearings into the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2009, the Government defended its solar credits multiplier that creates false RECs as follows:

“In response, the Department of Climate Change explained:
Solar credits will commence from 9 June 2009 and be phased out by 2015-16, recognising that technology costs are going down and the role of CPRS in providing incentives for renewable technologies. The timing of the phase-out by 2015-16 means that Solar Credits will not adversely affect reaching the 20 per cent target by 2020″.

So if I commit fraud against my employer, so long as I don’t adversely affect my employer’s targets in a few years time that makes it OK??????.

Coalition Senators accepted this explanation.

On one final point, neither the Greens, the Government or the Coalition opposition have taken any interest in better defining the 20% target to ensure that voluntary efforts are not counted towards the 20%. At the moment, if the old baseline of 15000 GWh plus the expanded mandatory bit of 45,000 GWh is 20% of Australia’s energy use then everything is OK. But if in 2020, Australia’s energy use is greater than 300,000 GWh then the Government can also use voluntary renewable efforts to contribute to 20% extinguishing the merits of the voluntary actions.

Voluntary efforts can be made meaningless by any number of bad policy decisions by Government. To be effective, they need to be made to work under emissions trading (my view is that this is almost impossible) they need to count for the customer and they need to be above the volume thresholds mandated by Government. A failure on any one of these areas is not acceptable.

OI believe that there should be a separate and additional place for voluntary renewables .

Thanks for the reply and I stand corrected in relation to the Act’s objectives clause.

That said, an objects clause only goes to the purpose or objective of the Act. The objective of the Act is to mandate a certain level of renewable energy for the purpose of reducing emissions. This doesn’t mean that the Act’s job is to reduce emissions, it simply means that the reason the Act is there (or its purpose) is to reduce emissions.

For instance, the Trade Practices Act’s (TPA) objective is to “enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection”. The job of the TPA is to promote competition etc and its objective is to enhance the Australian people’s welfare.
Put in the same terms as the TPA, the RET Act’s objective is to “reduce emissions through the promotion of renewable energy” . That is, the Act’s job is to promote renewable energy and its objective is to reduce emissions.
If it wasn’t for greenhouse gas emissions, the RET’s objective may be different although its job the same. That is, the government may wish to “reduce demand for overseas fossil fuels through the promotion of renewable energy”. Same Act different purpose or objective.
In summary, because increased use of renewable energy by its nature will reduce emissions compared to business-as-usual, the RET Act will be true to its objective if it results in the uptake of renewable energy.

As I said in my reply above, the current design may not significantly reduce emissions today, but this does not make the policy a failure.

By the way, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to do more regarding emission reductions, but I just think that we need to tread very lightly at this stage of the process in Australia. This country is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels both literally (generation and exports) and emotionally.

I think that we need to get the infrastructure in place to reduce emissions. The fact that it may not be perfect insofar as wholesale emission reductions are concerned is regrettable but an absolute reality born of public fear. Now it would be great top think that we could shut down the coal industry but it is not going to happen.

So, notwithstanding my mixed metaphors, I believe we should tread lightly on outcomes at this stage, lest it scare the horses, but assemble a very large legislative superstructure which will ensure that, in 50 years, low emissions will be the norm.

“The objects of this Act are:
(a) to encourage the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources; and
(b) to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases; and
(c) to ensure that renewable energy sources are ecologically sustainable.”

This is very clear that the object of the current act is to increase renewable energy and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Now lets look at the subtle change in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009, that was made by the Government in full knowledge of the perverse impacts on voluntary action that cap and trade mechanisms cause. The amendments to the object are:

“Omit:
(b) to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases; and
Substitute:
(b) to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector; and”…

You may have noted that in my submission on the previous RET Exposure Draft Legislation http://www.climatechange.gov.au/renewabletarget/consultation/sub_ret/5Kelly.pdf, my Reccommendation 6 suggested removing the reference to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Section 3, as the “purpose of the legislation can no longer to be “to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses” and this should therefore be removed from the Objectives of the Act. In acknowledging that it is only by reducing the number of permits released under the CPRS that will reduce emissions, it is misleading to suggest that increasing the use of renewables would result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions either economy wide or even in the electricity sector” (and some additional explanation).

The Australian Government has however persisted with its claim that this Bill will “reduce emissions in the electricity sector”. Furthermore, at the Voluntary Action Public Consultation Workshop held in Adelaide last week I asked a very specific question regarding whether the Government stands by its logic that traditional voluntary actions like energy efficiency, walking to work, or using household generated renewable energy will ultimately reduce emissions by freeing up permits and lowering the costs to the economy? – the answer was a definite yes.
Your comment that “The RET has not been designed to reduce GHGs over its operative period” is therefore not supported by the Object of the current Act, the Bill or the Government position. I can only assess the the success or failure of the government’s policy based upon its stated objectives and position.

So with the policy objective stated by Government including both to encourage more renewable electricity and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector, the Solar Credits concept fails on the basis of mathematics. Every extra MWh displaces 5 MWh of renewable energy already required by law. It fails in both renewable energy created which decreases by 4MWh per MWh deemed and fails again in that greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced in the electricity sector, they are increased by a nearly 4 tonnes CO2-e per MWh.

It could be aregued that the RET as a whole requires more renewable energy, yet it will always fall short of the annual Renewable Power Percentage whilst there is a multiplier of solar credits in existence. The Solar Credits concept fails when considered by itself as it results in less renewable energy and causes more emissions compared with householders taking no action.

This question is not about “whether the reductions should come from private actions and / or commercial and industrial restructuring”. It is about where customers make a choice to install solar systems does the Solar Credits concept result in more or less renewable energy and more or less renewable energy infrastructure. There must be purpose to getting one “one of these damn things on your roof”. Householders are actually led to believe that they are creating more renewable energy and reducing emissions. If customers fully understand that their actions will actually result in less renewable energy, the chances are that they would do something else.

Yes targets are important and I have not sought to diminish this priority in any way. At the same time we also require sensible policy that does not cause the waste of funds and resources in schemes that actually result in more harm than good.

Transitioning to a fully functioning low carbon economy will take more than just stronger targets in a CPRS that cripples voluntary mechanisms. We require policies that will work and not pretend. It is only then that industries like the household solar industry can have confidence in the future of their industry.

“Unfortunate that the only mention of the word ‘nuclear’ was in relation to weapons. Senator Milne doesn’t seem to realise that technological development has been taking place in nuclear energy as well as mobile phones since the 60s and 70s. In this she is just as wedded to Old (Green) Thinking as the “Old Parties and Old Polluters” she decries.”

The RET has not been designed to reduce GHGs over its operative period. Therefore, the fact that it fails to reduce GHGs does not mean it fails.

The CPRS is the primary response to reduction of GHGs – its through this mechanism alone that we reduce GHGs. The CPRS allows governments the flexibility to pick a reduction target its thinks appropriate and also the mechanism to impose the costs of that reduction in the least cost way. It’s great that we are arguing about the target, but that’s where the argument should stay. The question as to whether the reductions should come from private actions and / or commercial and industrial restructuring is simple – who can reduce more for less pain? My argument, and I think the government’s argument, is that people changing light bulbs or turning off their VCRs are not going to stop Climate Change. You have to hit the big emitters at their very foundations.

So, to really change the structure of our energy economy we need to place a price on GHG emissions (i.e CPRS). Unfortunately, to put a price on GHGs which will induce business to invest significantly in renewable energy will take an impost of about $60-$70 per tonne of CO2e. As that sort of financial impost will be economically damaging for Australia, the price of CO2e can really only be around $20-$30 (set by the market).

Therefore, we also need a mechanism to induce renewable energy investment which stands apart from the CPRS – i.e. RET. The RET is there to induce investment in renewable energy which it does by mandating a set amount of renewable energy by 2020. It doesn’t actually matter if that in itself reduces GHGs prior to 2020 – what it does is create an infrastructure that is low-emission. Five RECs for 1 MWh is an incentive to get one of these damn things on your roof.

The CPRS lowers emissions the RET creates low-emission infrastructure. They are different policies for different policy outcomes.

Unfortunately, I do not think that the Australian people are ready for deep and economically injurious cuts in emissions – the Green movement know this and rather than fight a battle on targets that will undoubtedly fail, they want to point out the limitations of the legislative response. But, I hope that we all don’t get caught up in a fight that only the climate sceptics can win. I do not want to see the Green movement go the way of the Republican movement.

Please, complain about the target. Everyone stand up, hit the streets and say Australia wants deeper cuts, but don’t get caught up in the obfuscations. To be clear; this is not bad policy just policy that doesn’t go as far or do as much as some would like it to.

No. I was thinking more of wind power’s intermittancy and variability, and the extreme difficulty with which it is integrated into the grid unless mated to hydro. Yeah, it can be matched with natgas as well, but is that really a good AGW mitigation scheme?

There’s also the matter of wind’s resourse-intensive nature (more concrete and steel per kW.h than nuclear, and by a considerable amount).

Of course, from an AGW mitigation point of view, the real question is how much coal will be left in the ground which would otherwise have been burned? How’s that going with Denmark?

Hmm. On track for a collision with the laws of physics, I would suggest.

I agree that heat pumps should be dealt with in a different mechanism as should solar hot water hreaters which currently produce around 20% of required RECs.

As I said, the changes to the Act should have been straight forward in regard to what was required for the Government to reachits 20% election pledge committment.

When policy blunders are introduced I don’t accept that we should turn a blind eye because of other high level arguments and future high level target matters. If we always take the view that we must move on with a given policy and trivialise flaws then we eventually end up with policy that becomes ineffective.

To date we have:
* An ETS proposal that could not possibly deliver least cost abatement due to its compromises;

* An ETS proposal that cripples voluntary mechanisms and the Government can only trying to intervene where there is some transaction to measure (and it won’t wan’t to recognise too much);

* A household solar credits scheme that will cause more greenhouse pollution compared with doing nothing;

* A GreenPower scheme doesn’t legally assign the greenhouse benefits or use aspects of to GreenPower customers (despite what the GreenPower marketing messages say);

* A voluntary cancellation of permits idea cancels out traditional voluntary actions using the Government’s own logic (There is a case that it is legitimate to reduce the cap in line with tangible voluntary achievements, however there is no case that permits can be removed in isolation of tangible voluntary achievements without cancelling out the freed up permits of other separate voluntary initiatives; and,

* A combination of the mandatory and voluntary mechanisms proposed that completely fail to give protection or legitimate choice for customers to buy low emissions electricity as a way to avoid carbon costs (ie a low emissions retail market economy that works in a sector that accounts for half of Australia’s emissions, and accounts for most of the CPRS coverage).

I don’t want do divide opposition to greenhouse pollution and I don’t regard myself as a purist but I think that if Governments (and oppositions) were really called to account for bad policy sections and bad policy detail then they might not try so many short cuts in the future and we could better focus on the short, medium and long term targets and changes needed.

So I hope your argument is not with encouraging hot water heat pumps, but using REC rebates. Perhaps the government should have set up a completely separate system for hot water heat pumps. The big picture is that we are now going down a path of increasing renewable energy much faster than then when we had a 1%(or 2%?) target in 2007.

If we don’t get close to the 20% by 2020, it won’t matter what was included in REC’s. The issue is, by 2020, what is counted. We know the solar X5 multiplier will not be operating by then and no one has been able to say if the heat pump hot water is being counted or it’s a convenient way of also stimulating another good measure.

I am more interested in what happens after 2020, we need to build up capacity to manufacture and install solar hot water, solar PV, , heat pumps, wind energy, CSP solar (and at least start with nuclear). The fact that one individuals PV does not increase the overall 20% target, or one industry makes zero contribution, or one state(SA) exceeds the target is irrelevant it’s the direction of the final target that matters, and will the 2030 target be 30% or 40% renewable (and nuclear)?

If the purists scream because of the REC for heat pumps, or X5 temporary multiplier for solar, imagine the screams if nuclear is included in 2030 or 2040 renewable targets, although in practical terms it should be included.(lesson for future Liberals; if you want to divide opposition to coal, include all energy measures opposed by coal industry into a “non-coal” target and allow opposition to coal fight amongst themselves).

I like Finrod’s cynicism that the policy may work for other motives, but I will just assess this against the stated claims by the Government that the Bill will increase renewable energy and the objective of the Bill Schedule 1, 1 Section 3, is to “to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector”. Well the Solar credits idea produces less renewable energy and increases greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector so it fails in that regard.

I have faced the argument that “This is precisely how MRET is designed to work” argument many times and it has been used by many officials when I have complained that the old system was achieving zero increase of Australia’s Renewable energy above that already required by law. My response has been to these officials has been to say “OK, just tell people in plain English what is going on”. I have urged for clear disclosure standards on all RECs transaction documents for solar hot water heaters and SGUs, but this never happens.
The majority of householders that I meet (who sign across their RECs) have no idea that their solar systems have provided zero additional renewable energy for Australia.

I agree that the GreenPower issue is separate. With GreenPower it does currently create more renewable energy and reduce Australia’s emissions, but it doesn’t legally allocate the ‘reduced emissions’ or the ‘use’ aspect to the paying GreenPower Customer. I have covered this before and will have a great deal more to say in the near future.

Cheers

I don’t think anyone at legislative level has faced up to using low carbon generation to shut down coal. We know across the community that this is the intention but the link hasn’t been constructed. So you get these policy instruments such as rebates and targets being developed and then linked to similar instruments but not to the wider need i.e. stopping CO2e. Hence we end up with this problem with RECs.

We’ve discussed before on other threads the problems with an ETS and I see the discussion on this thread as just another example of the problems behind an ETS. The view I posted was that the ETS had changed from being primarily a mechanism to reduce CO2e emissions to a mechanism that shielded against such reductions. Thats the same fig leaf with renewables.

A way to change this could be through pointing out that the Australian economy won’t die if coal withers. We are still locked into this idea that it is integral to our economy and this idea holds sway in the boardroom and on the back and front benches. If we can show that withdrawing from coal won’t kill us and persuade people that this is so then I think we will get somewhere. Otherwise the thinking will continue to be along the lines, “well renewables are fun but we still need to coal to turn our lights on but we will throw some money their way” or “well of course nuclear has potential but IFR is a long way off so we had better stick to coal and invest in new generators now and not wait”.

I think my country, Australia, as a society finds it very hard to make changes (unless its buying the latest twinkly gadget) and I have to compare it with here in the UK where I’m currently living. The Brits seem much more bolshie than us so they will go and occupy a coal fired power station as part of an ongoing campaign. They have a dept of climate change and energy, maybe a fig leaf but it demonstrates that the perceptions are different. Its also interesting that the Brits destroyed their coal mining industry under a right wing government as a deliberate action but thats a separate story.

Sorry if this has been too discursive.