CEC proposes compromise deal – and massive cut – to RET

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Clean Energy Council proposes compromise deal on RET – good news for wind farm developers, but possibly bad news for big solar developers. The offer was quickly rejected by the government, with solar leaders accusing its peak body of “betrayal”.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Clean Energy Council has capitulated in front of pressure from the Abbott government and proposed a “compromise” deal that would see a massive cut in the size of the large scale renewable energy target.

In a letter to the government, and to Labor, the CEC has proposed an agreement at 33,500GWh, down from the current target of 41,000GWh. It is half way between the government’s “take it or leave it” offer of 32,000GWh, and Labor’s bottom line of 35,000GWh, and represents a cut of around one third of the outstanding target.

The letter was sent by CEC chief executive Kane Thornton, most likely under pressure from major wind energy players who are keen to see any sort of deal achieved in the hope that it can unblock the deadlock that has seen investment in large scale renewables virtually dry up in the past 18 months.

wind and solar

However, it will likely anger and frustrate developers of large scale solar, who believe that the reduced target will now largely be met by shovel-ready wind energy projects.

Large scale solar developers – which some analysts had forecast would make up one half of the target had it remained at the original 41,000GWh – will now find themselves marginalised, although a number of smaller projects could get the go-ahead, depending on financing and the structure of the deals.

The CEC recognises that an abridged target would “impact diversity”, and so asks that the government desist in its attempts to close the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which are key to ushering in new technologies such as solar and storage.

Indeed, it is believed some solar developers proposed reserving – or banding” some part of the RET for large scale solar developments, but this was fiercely resisted by the wind energy industry.

If the government and Labor can agree on the new target – no certainty given the Abbott government’s trenchant position – the biggest winners will be the coal-fired utilities, which the Warburton review made clear would be the only beneficiary of cutting the RET.

Separate analysis says that could be to the tune of more than $5 billion in revenues for the coal industry they would otherwise have lost. Meanwhile, the coal sector – already with massive over-capacity – is hanging out for government payments to help in remediation costs and the permanent closure of some facilities.

The compromise deal caught some by surprise, given the rejection of the 32,000GWh offer by the Abbott government on Monday, but others said there were some hints that the CEC was looking to break the deadlock, and did not want to risk the potential impact of another six months of uncertainty.

The full letter follows:

“I write to propose a solution to the current impasse in relation to the Renewable Energy Target (RET). This proposal represents a major compromise for the clean energy sector, the Government and the Opposition. I believe it is in the national interest that both major parties support this proposal and finally resolve this issue.

The Government’s review of the Renewable Energy Target has now been underway for more than one year. The uncertainty this has created has resulted in an 88 per cent drop in investment in large-scale renewable energy, with a massive impact on both the investors and the 21,000 workers in the sector.

The consequences of this are significant for the clean energy sector, as well as the broader energy and business community. It is now critical that this issue is resolved and the bipartisanship that the policy has enjoyed for more than a decade is restored.

There have been a number of areas of substantial agreement for some time. These include:

  • Providing full exemption for Emissions-Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) industries
  • Leaving the Small-scale renewable energy scheme unchanged
  • Removal of the legislated requirement for a review of the policy every two years.The final key sticking point in resolving this matter has been the target for the Large Scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET). It is important to recognise that any reduction to the LRET target will have a negative effect on the entire sector.While the sector is not prepared to accept the Government’s previous proposal to cut the 2020 LRET target to 32,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) due to the impact it would have on the sector, we are prepared to accept a reduction of the target to 33,500 GWh.We accept that some level of compromise is necessary in any political negotiation, and this figure represents the mid-point between the original position of Government (often described as a ‘real 20 per cent’) and the Opposition (41,000 GWh as legislated). It is also a compromise between the Government’s current position of 32,000 GWh and the Oppositions mid to high thirty thousands. Note that these figures are exclusive of the 850 GWh from Waste Coal Mine Gas that has been added to annual targets.

This compromise must also recognise the following:

  • A reduction of the target to this level will impact future technology diversity. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) have played an important role in supporting the development of a diverse set of renewable energy technologies for the future. The CEC requests that Government reverses its position with respect to these two institutions and commits to their enduring future, as well as to consider further approaches to deliver technology diversity.
  • After being frozen for over 12 months, it is important to kick-start new investment as quickly as possible once the current review is complete. We would welcome consideration of initiatives to ensure investment flows quickly to protect jobs in this industry.
  • It is important that annual targets are set in a way that balances the need to kick-start new investment and minimise damage to existing investments, yet support sustainable levels of deployment that encourage both least cost renewable energy and a diversity of technologies.
  • Any retrospective exemption for EITE businesses in 2015 must be accounted for in an adjusted 2016 target to ensure the renewable energy sector is not further disadvantaged by this retrospective exemption.While recognising that this review has not considered the longer-term future of the renewable energy sector, it is critical that Australian energy policy continues to deliver on the important objective to transition to a cleaner energy sector and establishes the long-term policy drivers necessary to do this. We believe it is important that a clear process for doing this is established as quickly as possible.I trust that the above proposal is constructive in helping to finally resolve this matter and would welcome further discussion to this end. I have also sent this proposal to the Leader of the Opposition and will be urging the Federal Labor Party to also support this compromise proposal.”Kane Thornton

Update: Industry minister Ian Macfarlane has rejected the CEC offer, saying his government would not budge above 32,000GWh – saying that it translated into one of the highest renewable energy targets in the world. (Not true).

“We are not conisering anything over 32,000GWh,” he told ABC Radio. The solar industry has reacted to the CEC’s compromise with fury, describing it as a “betrayal”. See comments below. “What have they done?” asked another.

The Greens said the industry should have stood together and held firm.  A lower target would lock in lower investment, fewer jobs, and a smaller cut to carbon pollution.

“If the government wants to fix uncertainty in the renewable energy industry, they can do it today. All it takes is for Mr Abbott to back off his cut to the RET, the way he’s backed down on Medicare and university fees,” said leader Christine Milne.

“The RET  was working brilliantly, rolling out investment and jobs, especially in rural Australia, and along came Tony Abbott. He realised renewable energy is undermining the profits of the coal fired generators so he went out to smash it.

“He’s smashed the Renewable Energy Target and now he’s going to everyone from Labor to the crossbench to the industry, pressuring them to fix it.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

91 Comments
  1. Connor Moran 3 years ago

    The senate will block it?

    • Giles 3 years ago

      Not if Labor is onside. Difficult for them not to be if CEC proposing it.

      • Robert Johnston 3 years ago

        Why one earth would Labor get onside with this? There is no political mileage for them in agreeing to such a low target. Apart from the few windfarm operators who effectively control the CEC, no one really supports this level of target within the renewable energy industry. The Greens will peel votes off Labor if they signed up to this nonsense.
        Shame on the CEC, not sure how they can claim to represent an industry when they are controlled by just a few wind companies.

        • Alastair Leith 3 years ago

          Agree, advancing Renewable Energy is core business for The Greens and major compromise by ALP with the climate wreckers of LNP will not be forgotten at ballot box. ALP mad to back this while deniers lead the LNP. If a new Liberal Party leader emerges then everything changes again and consensus may one day be possible again. Generational change at Federal LNP probably required first.

  2. heretostay 3 years ago

    First to blink loses. CEC just blinked.:(

    • Robert Johnston 3 years ago

      pathetic CEC.

    • Glen S 3 years ago

      It’s been pretty obvious this Government will back off when stared down, the CEC has just given into these pathetic ideology driven bullies.

  3. Chris Dalitz 3 years ago

    If a deal is cut with the cross-benchers, its important a gurantee is obtained not to reduce the small-scale threshold from 100kW to 10kW, as this would further reduce the LRET.

  4. Andrew Want 3 years ago

    This is an extraordinary capitulation and betrayal by the CEC. It appears Government strategy to divide and conquer has been swallowed by the CEC, and CEC has decided the wind sector is where its bread is buttered.

    Protecting the CEFC and ARENA does not address the issue, as the CEC well knows. The challenge for Australia’s large-scale solar future is a healthy market for long-term power purchase agreements, and that requires demand for new LGCs beyond those that will be absorbed by the near-term build-out of wind projects. The difference between 32,000 and 38,000GWh pa is existential for large-scale solar in Australia.

    There is considerable irony in the fact that, while wind power enjoys mixed public support at best and struggles to find support anywhere in Parliament (with most vehement opposition within the Coalition), solar enjoys massive public and Parliamentary support – the Government appears to have forced a situation that will lead to more wind projects and a slamming of the door on large-scale solar.

    Congratulations Ministers Macfarlane and Hunt – a pyrrhic victory indeed so far as renewables are concerned. But no doubt the coal-fired generators, as the major beneficiaries, will be effusive in praise.

    As for the CEC, describing this proposal as a ‘major compromise for the clean energy sector’ is both a stunning understatement and an extraordinary over-reach of representative authority. Regrettably it seems CEC’s claims of representation of the whole renewable energy sector were hollow after all. This proposal most certainly does not have Vast Solar’s support.

    Andrew Want
    Vast Solar
    High-performance, low cost CSP

    • Robert Johnston 3 years ago

      Andrew, Lobby for competition in Solar Accreditation (why does the CEC have a monopoly on that – it makes no sense) and the CEC will fold – most of their revenue comes from Accreditation not the sponsor level membership fees only the big wind companies can afford.

      • William 3 years ago

        Excellent idea – it doesn’t make sense to contribute massive solar PV system design & install accreditation fees to an organisation that has been dominated by the wind energy sector and fossil fuel corporations.

        It’s not as if the CEC Accreditation scheme does anything – several independent audits over the past few years have identified thousands and thousands of unsafe, non conforming and non Standards compliant solar PV systems installed on domestic roofs by CEC Accredited installers! What an obscene rort.
        The competency accreditation system is bureaucratic, protectionist and incompetent!
        The latest mass consumer PV systems are simple plug and play commodities, and non typical systems can be easily designed to AS Standards with a simple excel spreadsheet or other free software.

        With a bachelor and Master’s degree in electrical engineering I cant legally install and grid tie a rooftop PV system, but my neighbour who left school at 15 and completed a Cert III electrotechnology (systems electrician) course can!
        It needs to be reviewed and bench-marked against the installation regulations in US, UK and Germany.

        The CEC has been an unfocussed, unwieldy beast since morphing from the BCSE, with most of the power positions within dominated by incumbent fossil fuel industry captains and foreign wind energy vendors.
        The time is right for the various state and national PV industry collectives to amalgamate into a new focused national solar council and seize the Accreditation concession from the CEC by promoting a cheaper, safer, internationally recognised and accessible representative alternative.

    • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

      Recent surveys in Victoria show there was general support for Wind in the rural communities, especially community wind projects. Don’t have numbers at hand but was something like 50% and 70% support respectively, will opposition in the teens.

      Any commercial wind project could render itself more community minded by sharing benefits more broadly than simply the actual landholders with leasing arrangements and local cricket club (or whatever the local community group it is that’s getting some love).

      • Coley 3 years ago

        The local wind farm owners, as well as paying rental to the land owners also offered £12000 PA to the three parishes affected by the WF, but our local council decided to object urged on by the local NIMBYs, they lost and had to pay thousands in costs, and the wind farm owners cut our payment by a third, to re-coup expenses, but in reality a little power play to punish objectors.

  5. Chris Fraser 3 years ago

    In addition to the debateable conditions above , maybe add a requirement that due to the ever-improving returns from investment in alternative energy – RET reviews would allow an increase in the annual TWh amount every assessment period, provided the TWhs are always going upof course.

  6. JohnOz 3 years ago

    The negotiating position should have been, “Yes, we will consider cutting the RET provided that you significantly cut the almost $11billion per year Australians pay to subsidise the fossil fuel industry.”

    That should shut the bullies of the Lieberal Party up.

    • Concerned 3 years ago

      Actually,there are no subsidies for coal powered generation.

      • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

        Actually it’s some $10b a year. You do know they take free potable water from our dams, avoid diesel fuel rebates, get their exports sponsored through government export “foreign aid” schemes.

        http://environmentvictoria.org.au/fossilfuelsubsidies#.VRQkyjuUeYo

        http://paidtopollute.org.au/ptp-fossil-fuel-subsidies

        • Concerned 3 years ago

          Suggest you seek counsel with someone who is literate in economic affairs,and I am talking about coal fired generation.
          And also please do not quote opinion and assertion.You insult me.
          In addition ,how is electricity generation from coal part of “foreign aid”? Do we run undersea cables to somewhere? Odd.

          • David Osmond 3 years ago

            Another classic example of subsidies given to coal generation concerns the Cobbora coal mine. Coal power stations in NSW were struggling with the high cost of coal back in 2010. The NSW Government decided to develop a coal mine, at enormous cost to the tax payer, and which was likely to run at a loss, to provide the power stations with highly subsidised coal. In the end, the Government pulled out of the deal, but a $300 million penalty had to be paid to Origin to compensate them for not providing them with subsidised coal.
            http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2010/11/1/policy-politics/canary-coal-mine

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            As I said,no subsidy for coal fired generation.

          • David Osmond 3 years ago

            And if the government paid $300 million to a wind farm developer as an alternative to subsidising the cost of their turbines, would you also consider this as not a subsidy?

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Lost me.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            You were already lost.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            However the consumer has had to pay $9 billion dollars so far for REC,for the generation of about 1% of power,bargain.

          • David Osmond 3 years ago

            I think you need to update your data. In Australia, wind currently supplies about 4%, and solar is closing on 2% of our electricity.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Thanks.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            The ALP introduced the scheme, which the new Govt sensibly terminated.

          • Coley 3 years ago

            As an outsider I hesitate to comment too deeply on Australian affairs, but from what is posted on here, the ‘Abbot govt’ and ‘sensible’ seems to be a perfect example of an oxymoron.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Suggest you widen your reading to further your knowledge.This publication is slightly skewed to put it mildly.

          • Coley 3 years ago

            No problem, may I recommend Chris booker in the UKs Sunday telegraph, you will love him.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Never read that paper.Who owns it?

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            yeah so why do you bother to troll the intelligent readers here who school you left, right and centre?

          • Coley 3 years ago

            David, followed your link on that one, unbelievable! But have you any links to let people know what the eventual outcome was?
            Tried following articles but not being familiar with your medias reporting styles I ended up hopelessly wandering into unrelated issues.
            Cheers.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            It was scrapped.Never had a chance of coming to fruition.An ALP fantasy.

          • Coley 3 years ago

            A few years back, we had a prime minister who destroyed the UK coal industry, I hated her then and still do, but she, despite her motivations, got the UK ((accidentally) on its path to a renewable future,
            Abbot, on the other hand, while having the same ideology, is having the opposite effect, wrong bloke, wrong time;)

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            Thatcher, a chemist by training, accepted CC from the start. Also there was a strong understanding and commitment to action in Tories thanks to a Lord whose name escapes me but who was also Editor of a Biology/Botany/Nature Journal. He was very much the climate activist (in the best of tory traditions!).

          • Coley 3 years ago

            Unfortunately thatchers ‘dash for gas’ was more about making the UKs generating capacity more attractive to investors prior to privatisation then any real concern for the environment .
            The fact that it gave her the chance to put the boot into the mining unions was just an added bonus.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            Yes but the Torie anti-renewables rhetoric only got started in more recent times with the Lord Lawsons etc

          • Coley 3 years ago

            How does your link square with your earlier statement that coal doesn’t receive subsidies?

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            In Australia,there are no subsidies.Some R&D ,but that is through all industries.

          • Giles 3 years ago

            Really. And how do you describe the subsidies in WA and Qld that deliver coal power well below the cost of delivery to consumers. The WA government seems to think they are a subsidy. Not to mention the same subsidies for supply of coal to NSW coal generators.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            WA,I believe you are correct, there is a problem there,but hardly contributes a great deal to annual output in Australia.

          • Giles 3 years ago

            OK, progress, We have now moved on from the statement of no coal subsidies in australia, to recognition there are subsidies there in at least some states. Not sure how payments to fossil fuel generators that are never switched on can be described otherwise. The Queensland CSO, same subsidy as described in WA, is $600m a year. Read Ergon’s annual report for more details. Similar cross subsidies appear in NSW and S.A. – they are just not separated out.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            The logic astounds me.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            Thanks Giles you got a freaking admissions from a serial flip-the-topic troll!

          • Coley 3 years ago

            Confusing to say the least, but it would seem Australia is going down the UK road of selling off its utilities to international venture capitalists
            Who,of course have consumer interests at the very core of their business structures.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Research here shows those States who have privatised have the cheapest power.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            That’s a really silly over-simplification. There are several cofactors in the total of a domestic electricity bill. Networks, gold plating or otherwise can be mismanaged in both State and Private management. Then there’s the generation costs, SA having low wholesale prices due to 40% RE and 30% wind power.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            “In 2005, 1.31 megalitres (46×103 cu ft) of water was consumed per 1 gigawatt-hour (3.6 TJ) of power generated.[14] Cooling water for the power station is supplied by the Hazelwood Pondage, built for this purpose in the 1960s. The pondage is supplied with water from the Moondarra Reservoir and runoff pumped from the adjacent mine. Within the mine, water is sprayed onto the coal surfaces to reduce the chance of fire and to suppress fugitive dust” from Hazelwood wikipedia page

            let’s see, I get charged 2.6$/kL so I’d be paying $3.406 per GWh of generation for the water. With an annual output of 6,218 GWh that’s $21,178,508 cost for water at town rates who are otherwise deprived of said water. Just another freebie.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Basic ,economics,as the water has no other market,your figures are nonsense.
            in addition do you use roads to get to work etc?I wonder what they cost?

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            Have you heard of Australia? Driest continent on Earth after Antarctica. We just built a $4 billion water desalination plant in the same Gippsland as these coal power stations with operating costs of a couple of billion. You have a great sense of humour. Suggest you look up nonsense in the dictionary, then look up “projection”.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            The plant should never have been built,as there are many potential resources available.
            However your staggering lack of any factual input is unprecedented.The dishonesty is breathtaking.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            So you accept the importance — and therefore market — for water security is so strong that the government did in fact spend $4B on a desal plant, urged on the whole way by conservative Ted Baillieu who suggested it in the first place. That’s a fact.

            furthermore we are getting predictions that Melbourne’s water catchments will be 9% worse off in a decade and 18% worse off by mid-century. So free water to three massive power station in Gippsland is a really big subsidy, just one of many that have been pointed out to you.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            paying third world countries to buy our coal out of the foreign aid budget is a subsidy just like Italy subsidising fertiliser for tomatoes to be dumped in Australia is a subsidy.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            We do not pay anyone to take our coal.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            That is exactly what Australian Govt would like to do, sponsor coal exports and QLD Newman govt proposed to fund export terminal at Abbott Point and railway to there from new mega mines. Suggestions have been made that Australia govt considering using foreign aid budget to drop the price of coal for developing nations to compete with renewables. Bloody genius.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Your basic knowledge of economic is demonstrated to be zero regarding infrastructure building.
            And further total dishonesty in suggesting there ahs ever been a suggestion to subsides coal is total dishonesty.
            My goodness you have a problem.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            Not just a suggestion, a fact. You don’t seem to tire of being shown wrong easily Concerned. It’s as persistent as your immature heckling.

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/29/un-green-climate-fund-can-be-spent-on-coal-fired-power-generation?utm_content=bufferf88d7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Oh dear,bye.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            Dumping pollution in the atmosphere for free, an indirect subsidy since industry doesn’t pay the costs of it’s own production. $5B a year in health costs alone from burning coal. $500B in USA according to Harvard School of Health. That’s heavy metals, radioactive isotopes, PM, SOx and NOx. Then there is the indirect subsidy of GHG emissions. Global warming has already cost Australia billions of dollars in increased cyclone incidences and severity, more prolonged droughts, less rainfall in general at productive times, increased flooding, increased bushfires and super fire-storms one in one hundred intensity year fires once every ten years may become every other year soon. These are all indirect subsidies.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            Self published links from a climate change denier, excuse me if I pass…

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Hardly .You are now telling me that published information from BOM is not correct.Your really do have a problem.Your intellectual dishonesty shines through.

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Yep,self published indeed.

            http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

            http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

            I tend to rely on facts and evidence ,not opinion and assertion .
            So much for your assertion regarding the increase in extreme weather.
            By the way,same trend in Pacific and North America if you wish to research further, or if you are unable,I will provide the links.

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            From the Economist:

            “Water conservation is another concern for policymakers—on current trends coal could account for a quarter of China’s water use by 2020 and coal reserves are mainly in the most parched regions.”

            http://www.economist.com/news/business/21647287-more-countries-turn-against-coal-producers-face-prolonged-weakness-prices-depths

          • wideEyedPupil 3 years ago

            Literate in economics like the World Trade Organisation? The WTO says that if the government doesn’t collect a revenue that is otherwise due, such as through tax credits, then that is a subsidy. And that is exactly the case with the diesel rebate.

        • Coley 3 years ago

          He ain’t listening;)

          • Concerned 3 years ago

            Funny thing,IEA acknowledge no subsidy on coal fired generation in Australia.

      • Alen T 3 years ago

        Coal-fired generators are by definition reliant on mined coal to operate, therefore your statement of no subsidies for ‘generation’ is no more than typical politician’s word play. From the IEA: The IEA has defined energy subsidies as any government action that concerns primarily the energy sector that lowers the cost of energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers” i.e. coal-fired generators are recipients of a subsidy.

        • Concerned 3 years ago

          And the IEA acknowledges no subsidies in Australia for coal powered generation.

  7. adam 3 years ago

    any word from labour?

  8. Alen T 3 years ago

    I’m lost for words.

    The CEC have just justified and given credibility to the public that the LNP’s stance that the RET needs to be cut. Is it not pathetic that the industry itself cannot rely on its ‘spokesperson’ to standup against blatant lies and fight for the whole sector’s survival?

    We like to criticise the coal industry for a number of reasons, but at least they stuck together and combined to fight against the ‘carbon tax’ (ETS), mining tax, managed to aid in deposing a highly popular PM and eventually influenced the outcome of an election. The CEC in comparison puts out some reports, makes a couple of statements and buckles to the unjustified demands of one of most UNpopular PMs and his lame duck ministers. To emphasise, this in on an issues (renewables) that have around 90% support from the public.

    If we can’t stand up for our own, why should we expect others to do it for us? Time to consider an industry change.

  9. Ken Dyer 3 years ago

    Time for people to vote with their feet and move on to renewable energy suppliers like this one
    http://pollinateenergy.org/pollinatepower/

    That way large scale solar and wind energy suppliers put even more pressure onto the over supply of coal fired energy, and provide added incentive to build more projects.

    The RET is nothing now but a political number forced by the neoliberal policies of the coal loving and polluting Abbott Government.

    The RET will have to be increased within the next 2-3 years anyway, so all the retro Abbott Government is doing, as they have been doing since being elected, is to take Australia backwards to the 20th Century. Good government will start after the next election.

  10. Leigh Ryan 3 years ago

    Think i will order the batteries and go off-grid now, that’s the only way to fight Abbotts Coal Kingdom.

  11. Richard Johnston 3 years ago

    Folks
    This move by the CEC is either very dumb or very clever in a Machiavellian way.

    On dumb: The CEC has not polled its full membership of “550 businesses and 4500 solar installers” and this position cannot claim to be representative of them. In this context promoting a “compromise” is a really, really dumb move.

    On clever: If the CEC is really purely “wind powered” in its decision making (refer Andrew Want’s conspiracy theory below) or utility powered this is an abhorrent, sneaky and deceptive way to masquerade satisfying the CECs main constituency ( the wind/utility players), while disenfranchising almost everyone else ( greens/labour/most CEC members) as the comprise deal of the century. Niccolo Machiavelli would be really proud of Kane and his crew – but Niccolo died in his old age a very sad and lonely man.

    Either way, proposing this compromise is a reprehensible move and bad for climate change and the future of Australia.

    The Government do not have the numbers to pass 32 tWh through the senate – so why compromise now? Providing certainty of poor future for the industry NOW is far worse than a few months more of the current uncertainty and then a bright future.

  12. Albert Sjoberg. 3 years ago

    While I certainly do not want the RET to be cut at all, this deadlock has crippled the industry and cost investment… Just as Abbott has worked to undo all the previous government achieved, when abbot is no longer there, the damage done can be undone.
    The longer everyone stands around counting teeth renewables and the climate looses.

    • Alen T 3 years ago

      I’m no banker, but I imagine that if I seen the industry rep putting up such a cheap fight and opposition, I would think twice before lending these money, and further if I did, I would charge a higher interest to represent this ‘risk’. Gaining confidence and finance from banks will be harder as a result.

      Again, if CEC cannot mount a better opposition in an environment which has huge public support and already unpopular opponent, then what hope is there if these variable improve for the opposition.

  13. Steve Winters 3 years ago

    Shame on you CEC. If only I had a choice who to pay my accreditation fees .

  14. Alastair Leith 3 years ago

    Divide and conquer in train. Lies, delusion and spite are all this government has to offer up for Australia’s future.

  15. Rob G 3 years ago

    Abbott will be happy…

    • Pedro 3 years ago

      And he has a new CEC lap dog

  16. Pedro 3 years ago

    CEC now stands for Coal energy Corporation. A good for nothing toothless dog who mauls its owner. The soon accreditation can be given by a competitor orginisation the better.

  17. Askgerbil Now 3 years ago

    The argument over the renewable energy target may be something of non-event.

    Australia has effectively cut electricity demand and as a result has excess generating capacity. A fight between aging coal-fired power plants and new technology for a greater share of this declining market can be won just by waiting for the ultimate demise of the old as maintenance costs mushroom.

    A more productive focus would be a concerted push for the introduction of electric vehicles. There are significant benefits:
    1. Demand for electricity increases. Renewable energy generators can expand by servicing the resulting larger market.
    2. Transport fuel security – a significant issue – can be solved.
    3. Electricity prices can fall substantially. A dominant reason for price rises is the capital invested in poles and wires that are largely unused in off-peak periods. The unit cost of electricity can fall if a large increase in use of this infrastructure is added to recharge electric vehicles in off-peak periods.
    4. The cost of energy storage technology will fall quickly with the mass production of batteries for electric vehicles.

    • Chris Fraser 3 years ago

      Yes, and EVs should never be sold unless there is an attached requirement forever to use clean energy.

    • Barri Mundee 3 years ago

      I agree though one of the disincentives to the widespread us of EV’s is a purchase price that is much higher than the IC equivalent and a range that is still well below the IC equivalent. I am sure these will be overcome but could take years. Ideally government would provide very substantial rebates to bring the price down. Your point regarding fuel security is a good one that can be minimised by encouragement of EV’s. The impending demise of the local car industry represents a genuine opportunity for a more resilient economy if EV’s were to be encouraged.

  18. DogzOwn 3 years ago

    Disgraceful move by CEC. To address over capacity problem, how about EPA enabled to regulate emission limits, so that dirty old dinosaurs, like Hazelwood, need to clean up, or shut up or be replaced? For latter, would they invest on a promise of % of some rubbery figure? Surely they’d demand guaranteed minimum GWh/year? And would be fascinating to see real capital costs, even without CCS and lead time too. Why do fossils need to be compensated for shutdown? Not necessary in USA or Europe.

  19. Coley 3 years ago

    Mining, the age of entitlement!
    I thought that Thatchers ‘dash for gas’ was bad!?
    The Australian political generation ( abbots lot) must have read her memoirs with avid interest.

Comments are closed.