Labor suggests big RET cut, Macfarlane says still too high

The Labor Party has bowed to pressure from major industry lobbyists and fallen in line with the Clean Energy Council’s proposal to slash the renewable energy target by nearly 40 per cent, but the Abbott government is digging in its heals and has immediately rejected the offer.

The CEC last month controversially suggested cutting the RET target for 2020 from 41,000GWh to 33,500GWh, in the hope it would meet a compromise between the Coalition government, which wants to cut it even further, and Labor, which had previously set a range of the mid to high 30,000GWh.

Labor said it would support the CEC position, saying the certainty was needed for the industry and the impasse that has frozen investment for nearly two years needed to be resolved.

Capital_Wind_Farm_4_1-600x0

“Every day this matter drags on, more jobs are lost and every day the uncertainty continues, projects are shelved and future jobs are lost. Tony Abbott must end the uncertainly and accept the renewable energy industry’s compromise position today,” ALP leader Bill Shorten said.

But the offer gained short shrift from the government, with Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane saying the Abbott government would not budge above its latest offer of 32,000GWh, and adding it would prefer the target to be less than 30,000GWh.

Macfarlane told journalists at the launch of the government’s energy white paper in Brisbane, that the Coalition had already made several offers – its initial target being 26,000GWh, although he had said previously said his starting point had been 21,000GWh.

Labor said that if elected at the next election, due by the end of 2016 (or possibly early 2017), it reserved the right to expand the RET, “to bolster investment, specifically in large-scale solar.”

This appears to recognise the position of the solar industry, which has been hugely critical of the CEC move for a compromise, saying it would effectively kill the opportunity to developer big solar at scale in Australia.

Indeed, the only companies that have publicly supported the CEC decision have been the major wind energy companies. Wind is seen to benefit from an early resolution to the RET – and a cut to the target – because it has lower technology costs, at least in the near future.

Infigen Energy said it supported the ALP decision, and Senvion, a wind farm developer, also lent its support, saying the industry was desperate for policy clarity. It hinted at a move overseas if the issue was not resolved.

“If a reduction in the RET to 33,500 GWh is the only way to achieve bipartisan support for renewables in Australia, then we can see no other way forward for the clean energy industry,” CEO Chris Judd said in a statement.

“While global investment in clean energy is hitting record highs, investment in Australian renewable energy projects has dried up.  Without a healthy market for clean energy in Australia, companies like Senvion will be forced to look overseas for the next investment opportunities.

“We are close to finishing work on wind farms financed before the RET review.  We urgently need a resolution to the current impasse on renewable energy otherwise our operations in Australia will be under threat.  Major developments, like the $1.5 billion Ceres project in South Australia will not proceed while the future of the RET remains uncertain.”

But Macfarlane, who has previously acknowledged that the majority of the cabinet does not support renewable energy, said the Coalition’s offer was “as high as we can possibly put it without putting in jeopardy the stability of the scheme.”

The Australian Solar Council said the government has made no successful argument for reducing the Renewable Energy Target.  “Its crusade against renewable energy is driven by ideology,” CEO John Grimes said in a statement.

“Letting the renewable energy industry collapse, trashing billions of dollars of investment and over 10,000 jobs was the preferred  choice for the Abbott Government … A deal at 33,500 gigawatt hours will not deliver for large-scale solar.”

Comments

32 responses to “Labor suggests big RET cut, Macfarlane says still too high”

  1. Chris Fraser Avatar
    Chris Fraser

    “… without putting in jeopardy the stability of the scheme …”.? Save me from this insufferable pro-fossil stance. The only thing in jeopardy is this unelectable government.

  2. Rob G Avatar
    Rob G

    What is so annoying about this whole debacle is the determined effort of the LNP government to keep Australia in the past. They operate on an ideology that most of us cannot comprehend. They don’t negotiate they just state what they want and get annoyed when reason rears its head. They are, in fact, enemies of common sense. Election time can’t come quick enough.

    1. Raahul Kumar Avatar

      The state governments are all Labour though, except for NSW. The hope lies at the local and State level. QLD and Victoria Labour have ambitious renewable plans.

      http://yes2renewables.org/2015/03/13/vic-labor-govt-prepares-to-reshape-state-energy-policy/

      https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/2015/solar-and-utility-scale-renewables-big-winners-from-qld-election-68281

      Don’t wait for the next election, act now! Volunteer with the parties fighting for more renewables like the Pirate and Green Party, act at the local level, while waiting for the next Federal Election.

      1. JeffJL Avatar
        JeffJL

        WA? Tas?

        1. Raahul Kumar Avatar

          It may be a bit premature, but I’m saying:

          Colin Barnett’s government is done, and Labor’s Mark McGowan is going to be the next premier.

          http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2015/04/06/newspoll-52-48-to-labor-in-western-australia/

          ALP is according to the polls guaranteed to take every state government, with a cleansweep. Even NSW!

          1. JeffJL Avatar
            JeffJL

            I had not been paying much attention to the polls in WA recently as it is still a bit till the next election. Perhaps it was his statement that a campaign promise of a light rail which was “Fully costed and funded” did not amount to a campaign promise but a campaign slogan. Yes the light rail proposal was dropped.
            Did the Libs not just win NSW?

          2. Raahul Kumar Avatar

            The Libs won NSW, but Labour won 11 more seats, and Libs lost 7. The Greens also won 2 more seats, which is huge news. One more election result like this, and the NSW government will change hands in 2019.

            If the states have flipped Labour governing with green support, then the RET target can be pursued at the state level.

            QLD’s Anastacia(Labour) is putting up a million solar rooftops. The Federal level is not the only place where action to save the RET target can be taken. Why wait?

            There are enough pro renewable state governments to push for increasing renewables even if the Federal government is against it.

    2. Roger Brown Avatar
      Roger Brown

      Lnp are just protecting old money for old friends .

  3. michael Avatar
    michael

    falling demand and a move to distributed generation… not exactly the right environment to be pushing “large-scale solar” installations.
    see attached article

    https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/2015/utilities-brace-for-perfect-storm-as-demand-disruption-deepens-14923

    1. Raahul Kumar Avatar

      Australia has never funded utility scale solar, and missed the boat. If there is an expanded RET with a new government, that would change fast. The Beyond Zero Emissions plan to repower Australia is still the fastest way to achieve zero emissions, which solar on rooftops won’t be able to do.

      1. Alastair Leith Avatar
        Alastair Leith

        Probably if BZE SE Plan was revised today it would include more PV potentially both as a hybrid at solarCST+storage plants and on rooftops. The plan already made assumptions about rooftop PV and EE savings which it earmarked for investigation in the Buildings Plan. The Buildings Plan found even more EE savings and more value in PV than was (conservatively) assumed in in the 2010 SE Plan.

        1. Raahul Kumar Avatar

          That’s one of the reasons I thought the BZE guys should put out a new report, because there is new technology and better options available today than when they did their first cut.

          PV has many drawbacks though.

          “While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural
          gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste
          problem. fuelled partly by billions in government incentives, the
          industry is creating millions of solar panels each year and, in the
          process, millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water.”

          http://www.businessinsider.com.au/solar-panel-makers-grappling-with-waste-2013-2?op=1

          In contrast, CSP can be produced with close to zero environmental impact, uses less land, and costs less when you take into account it can last longer and work at a higher efficiency than can be achieved by PV.

    2. Pedro Avatar
      Pedro

      It could be rephrased. There will always be demand for cheaper, cleaner power that creates jobs and investment. Not to mention the side benefits to health (no particulates), virtually no water use and no whopping great open coal cut mines sometimes wrecking prime agricultural land and the water table.

      I can’t think of a better time to start retiring the oldest and most inefficient coal fired power stations.

  4. lin Avatar
    lin

    The libs are a bunch of destructive idiots, and the labs are only a little better, squabbling like spoiled toddlers in the playpen. A pox on both their houses. It’s time to get some real leadership back into our political processes before these conflicted idiots are the death of us all. This is imperative if we want to leave a world worth inhabiting for our children.
    Einstein said that continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome is insanity. We need to stop voting for these parties. Vote for local representatives, and return democracy to Australia.

    1. Pedro Avatar
      Pedro

      Agree with you on this one. Better to have a parliament full of independent minor parties even if some of the minor parties are total cranks. Chances are that any legislation that gets through will at least be a crowd pleaser.

  5. Graeme Henchel Avatar
    Graeme Henchel

    Labor “Reserves the Right” to increase the target. What a weak position. This is a key election issue and gets more so as we approach the Paris conference and global warming continues unabated. Labor must show some spine here. If they must compromise in the short term to get some stability ( though this is debatable) then so be it. But they must also foreshadow, in no uncertain terms, a complete reversal and restoration to at least the 41 GW target if they are elected.

    1. Alastair Leith Avatar
      Alastair Leith

      The point is just having a 41 TWh target is not enough, even a 100 TWh target by 2020 would not increase investment if there’s no bi-partisan support for it. The industry want long term certainty. We have legislation supporting 41,000 GWh today and invest has dried up since Abbott looked like winning the last election. Abbott has established that the LNC effectively has veto power over the RET, even in opposition.

      The way forward is clearly to find a better way forward delivering certainty on Power Purchasing Agreements and subsidies that are bankable. ACT has been using contracts for difference (CfD) and reverse auctions. CfD have been used in South Africa, Saudi Arabia and UK to get RE projects started with exceptionally low LCOE commitments from project developers in some cases.

  6. onesecond Avatar
    onesecond

    Does the Liberal party have enough votes to cut the RET on their own? If not and if they need Labour, why didn’t the Labour Party make it clear that they wouldn’t vote for any cut from the beginning? Then no uncertainty would have been there because it would have been clear that a cut would not pass. Can somebody enlighten me on this?

    1. Neville Bott Avatar
      Neville Bott

      Best I can do is that to make investments the industry needs the certainty they previously had with a bipartisan agreement. Now the LNP have reneged on this how can they invest knowing that the agreement may be changed every three years?

      The best Labor can do is to get an agreement with the LNP on the biggest target they can and hope the industry has confidence that the LNP will stick to it.

      However now they have broken just about every promise they have made and appear to be doing the bidding of their masters from the oil, gas and coal industries how will there ever be the level of certainty required to invest 100’s of millions in renewable energy?

      The LNP may have achieved their goal.

      1. onesecond Avatar
        onesecond

        So certainty for one legislative period only is what is left anyway at most, so Labour should say no to any cut and stick to it. Libs are not to be trusted anyway as it seems.

    2. Alastair Leith Avatar
      Alastair Leith

      It’s not just about changing the target, it’s about the potential uncertainty of ALP and LNC at war over RE. Bi-partisanship offered industry a level certainty they could go to financiers with. Clearly that has evaporated and other countries offer better prospects that backward looking Australia.

      1. onesecond Avatar
        onesecond

        So Lavour saying no to any cut and sticking to it would provide more certainty than any bi-partisanship since the Libs broke their promise anyway.

        1. Alastair Leith Avatar
          Alastair Leith

          as i said in a previous comment above, Abbott has established that the LNC effectively has veto power over the RET, even when they’re in opposition just by white anting/bad-mouthing RE and promoting FFs as “good for humanity”.

          Unless the industry starts investing in large scale RE with the current RET Target which LNC do not support in the coming months/years there’s no evidence existing legislation on it’s own is enough staunch the bleeding. I’m pretty certain CEC executives have their own employees’ jobs in mind when begging for compromise (not to mention their own liquidity).

          It then becomes a tactical/strategic question of what is the best way politically to

          1. provide investment certainty to RE industries, preferably encouraging a mix of wind and solar technologies, i.e. on-shore, off-shore, concentrated PV/thermal with steam/molten salts/battery/PH storage

          2. Do it in such a way that goal of 100% renewable stationary energy is achievable ASAP i.e. solve variability issues around RE

          3. shame/seduce LNC so bad they never ever try and destroy RE again.

          Certainly ~90% of comments on Plibersek’s Facebook graphic today are saying “compromise =/= capitulate”, therefore I think the electorate will reward the Greens for holding strong, irrespective of how many jobs are saved/lost out of this debacle. Like with the fuel excise issue the optics in the electorate don’t always align with policy realities.

          Alternatively RE companies do start investing again in projects even with an iffy RET target but there’s been zero sign of that so far, despite the legislated requirement for certificates going forward.

          Contracts for Difference being reverse auctioned off during ALP+Greens terms in Government with unbreakable contracts seems to be the way forward as exemplified by ACT and many countries both developed and developing. Very good LCOE strike prices have been bid in many cases as documented in so many RenewEconomy articles. Until Libs are shown and understand they will be punished for lying during elections about RE targets and CC action in general, bi-partisanship is gone for good. Industry therefore needs an entirely new premise to bank large scale RE projects. Hopefully the States step up in the meantime.

          1. onesecond Avatar
            onesecond

            “Abbott has established that the LNC effectively has veto power over the RET, even when they’re in opposition just by white anting/bad-mouthing RE and promoting FFs as “good for humanity”.”

            O_O

            Ok, the Australians and their parties really have to grow some balls and stand up to their idiotic bullys. If we cared about what the Conservatives said back in 2001 we still wouldn’t have even started the Energiewende in Germany. One thing to learn from German history is that appeasement policy to ideological nutjobs never works.

          2. Alastair Leith Avatar
            Alastair Leith

            So tell that to the Wind companies, they’re the ones who’ll have to wear the short-term pain of +non-appeasement+ :- And it seems like they waved the white flag before ALP even. Fair enough perhaps, it’s their businesses that are in risk of collapse. Doesn’t help their solarCST brothers and sisters though.

            Agree about Germany but The Greens there had decisive influence in setting up very healthy FiTs individually calibrated for each technology. Plus the conservative forces were very enthusiastic about supporting rural community power generation (bio-gas digesters) along with farmers & rural communities having solar and wind and feeding it into grid. There’s been enough political support to resist the push-back from coal and nuclear plant owners so far. In fact one large coal generation company said they missed the RE boat and are racing to catch up!

            The traditional conservatives (as opposed to radicals I suppose) were fearful of nuclear post-Chernobyl given that the radioactive isotopes fell from the skies onto German soil. Couldn’t be more different in Australia: Tories are all over nukes just because Greens dislike it as much as anything else and hate clean, cheap, distributed renewable energy.

          3. onesecond Avatar
            onesecond

            I think that four years are long enough to get a lot of windparks up and running, which could have happened if Labour made it clear from the beginning that any cuts wouldn’t happen. Granted, the risk would have been the Libs retroactively altering the price for these windparks, but then they could have sued and campaigned for Labour. I just don’t see the negotiating with the Libs going anywhere or helping anyone, especially in the long run, but maybe I’m wrong and don’t know enough about Australian policy.

          4. Pedro Avatar
            Pedro

            Another level of uncertainty for the RE industry is the cross benches who can do all sorts of back room deals to change the RET.

          5. Alastair Leith Avatar
            Alastair Leith

            Could but most of them love RE.

          6. Alastair Leith Avatar
            Alastair Leith

            Then why are CEC begging for a low-ball deal? It’s a complex issue and I still haven’t got a sense anybody has formulated a rational dissection of what’s driving investment and why has it stalled. There’s obviously the RET Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) which potentially drives demand through the $65 penalty price (which AGL and Origin proposed they’d rather pay than purchase RETs) but that alone has not driven any new projects since Abbott came to power (and even prior as he looked like coming to power). Whether developers are biding their time and would have incentive as the RET target increases from current 18,850 GWh (2015) to 41,450 GWh i.e. RET target stayed in law (but unsupported by LNC) is something I haven’t seen a convincing answer to from anybody.

            http://ret.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/About-the-Schemes/Large-scale-Renewable-Energy-Target–LRET-/about-lret#5

  7. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    The Labor party has backed down on yet another important policy where they should have been yelling from the rooftops. Absolutely hopeless opposition. There is only one party that truly supports renewable energy in this country ie: the Greens. When are Australians going to grow a brain and vote for some intelligent politicians with the guts to stand up to the fossil fuel industry that is destroying this country.

    1. Pedro Avatar
      Pedro

      Personally I do not back the greens on some policy areas, but the best thing about the Greens is that they have been clear and consistent on their policies in all major issues for decades. Although the Greens have been smeared in the mainstream media as being an economic disaster if they ever got in, I have come to the conclusion that their policies for economic growth will probably work in the long term. that they will be the only party that can manage to de couple the Australian economy from the quarry mentality.

  8. tsport100 Avatar
    tsport100

    What sort of spineless opposition is this?? “Abbott government would not budge” That’s not a negotiation then is it!

    Is it any wonder the 2 party system is failing around the world… it’s the vested interest industry lobbyists who actually run the government no matter which party claims to be in power!

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.