Coalition seeks to lock in weak emission targets under NEG

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Coalition gives no indication of changing emissions targets, but wants five years’ notice, and may use offsets. ESB flags potential use of auctions for reliability mechanism and greater use of demand response. It might not even be needed.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Coalition government has indicated it will seek to lock in its weak emissions reduction targets by requiring a five years notice period for any changes to electricity emissions targets that will be central to the proposed National Energy Guarantee.

The requirement was one of  number of new pieces of information revealed in a 56-page discussion paper released by the Energy Security Board on Thursday, with less than two months before it will present a draft of the new legislation to COAG energy ministers in early April.

The draft report reveals not only the complexity of the proposed NEG, which seeks to impose both “emissions and reliability” standards on the market, but also how much work is left to be done. Still, the ESB were seeking to downplay some of the worst fears about the mechanism.

The ESB – made up of the three key energy institutional bodies and two outside directors – is seeking responses on a whole range of issues, including how contracting should be done, how emissions and reliability should be measured, the treatment of “carryovers”, and the use of offsets, compliance, and penalties.

The details remain opaque – and on this occasion the ESB has omitted any modelling that could create further controversy over the amount of renewable energy that might be allowed under the NEG, or the amount of storage.

But a couple of clear pieces of information emerged:

One is that the reliability obligation will be set roughly along the lines of current AEMO forecasts, from its medium term MTPASA to its longer-term ESOO (statement of opportunities).

It does say that a new mechanism, or new approach, may be adopted, and it is still considering a time-frame for its forecast requirements – from three years to 10.

But based on the latest ESOO, then for most jurisdictions in the NEM, including the renewables rich South Australia, there may not be any reliability obligation.

“The hope of all ESB members is that we never trigger the reliability requirements,” Clare Savage, the ESB’s deputy chair, told RenewEconomy. “There will be a window of opportunity to fill any potential shortfall. The market will do what a market does best.”

How the market fills that shortfall is yet to be decided. It could be through contracts, it could be through swaps and caps, it could be through an auction (book-build) conducted by the Australian Energy Market Operator.

Reliability in terms of the NEG is considered to be adequate supply, having enough megawatts at a point in time to meet peak demand.

The ESB says it is not to be confused with energy “security” (inertia, frequency response, etc), which will be dealt with through different mechanisms. The reliability requirements will also need to take into account other key initiatives (day ahead markets, strategic reserves, and demand response).

Some of these issues have put two of the institutions that make up the ESB – AEMO, the operator, and the Australian Energy Market Commission (the rule maker) – at apparent loggerheads.

However, the prominence given to demand response – a technology strongly favoured by AEMO and so long-ignored by AEMC – will be pleasing to many (apart from those troglodytes that consider demand response to be the equivalent of mandated blackouts, which they are not).

“The emergence of new technologies and ensuing regulatory developments has meant that reliability is no longer the virtually exclusive domain of ‘supply-side’ solutions,” it says.

“Rather, the demand-side – including residential customers – now has a potentially important role to play in delivering a reliable power system at the lowest possible cost.

“Indeed, consumers are becoming better-equipped than ever to manage and control their energy use and contribute to reliability and this will only improve in the future. The demand-side is a key factor in driving the transformation of the energy sector.”

The decision to consider day-ahead markets, and a strategic reserve, are also signs that AEMO’s view is starting to gain more currency than in the initial rushed proposal, which was seen largely as an AEMC affair.

The submissions for stakeholders, which are due in early March, will make for fascinating reading. Like those for the recent reliability review, submissions should line up with incumbents broadly on one side, and new technologies on the other.

One of the biggest criticisms of the NEG as originally unveiled, was the danger of entrenching market dominance by the big “gen-tailers” – the likes of AGL, EnergyAustralia, Origin and Snowy Hydro.

The ESB says it is confident that it won’t result in reduced competition, and is aware of the risks, but doesn’t exactly spell out how it will be avoided.

In fact, it says it won’t be able to do that until the scheme design is further developed.

“The (ESB) considers that the design of the Guarantee should make sure that it does not unintentionally further entrench market power and create barriers to entry for smaller players,” it writes.

“However, the Energy Security Board considers that further consideration cannot be given to these issues until the design of the Guarantee is further developed.”

That underlines how little the NEG has evolved, despite its apparent complexity. Yet it seeks stakeholder feedback in early March, will present a draft to COAG in early April, and hopes to have it all wrapped up, and potentially legislated, by the end of the year.

Isn’t that an awful lot to do in a short period of time? “My view is that we haven’t got time to waste,” Savage says. “We need to ensure we have got this mechanism up and running so it can provide investment signals to provide replacement capacity.”

The other main criticism of the NEG was the indication from its initial modelling that it would result in little new investment in renewables. There is still no clarity about how that will be achieved.

Savage said she has no doubt that wind and solar will form the cheapest form of new generation, and the addition of storage in new projects was encouraging.

Ultimately, however, that will come down to the government, which will have responsibility over the emissions levels to be met under the guarantee.

The government contributed a chapter, but gave little away. It is still thinking in terms of a 26 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 (which most analysts and scientists say is completely inadequate to meet the Paris target it has signed up to), and says it will make a 10-year target before 2020.

The government also wants to insist that any change in the target – seemingly inevitable should the NEG be introduced and there is a change of government – must give five years’ notice before it is implemented.

To provide further investor certainty, changes to the target trajectory by the Commonwealth government could only apply with five years’ notice. For example, in 2025, no changes to targets from 2026 to 2030 could be made.

It is also looking to exempt emissions intensive trade exposed industries (as they were in the carbon price and RET), and is looking at up to 10 per cent of the emissions targets to be met by international offsets.

This emissions target remains the major point of contention, because while the ESB is promoting the NEG as a means of potentially bridging the policy chasm between right and left, it will remain largely ineffective if the federal emissions target is weak.

Federal environment minister Josh Frydenberg claimed on Thursday that the visiting head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, had endorsed the government’s approach, but that is not really what Birol said.

He had no comment on the NEG itself, reiterated his support for a carbon price (such as the one dumped by the Coalition), and reinforced the need for governments to recognise the plunging cost of new technologies, particularly solar.

And state and territory ministers whose support will be crucial at the April COAG meeting – where the ESB will seek approval for further design work – are still not convinced.

“In preventing us from making additional emissions reductions, it appears that the NEG will not allow progressive jurisdictions to continue getting on with the job of delivering clean, affordable and reliable energy,” ACT energy minister Shane Rattenbury said in a statement.

“This is an extraordinarily backward approach – one well out of step with the Finkel Review.

“In its current form, the NEG will stymie the development of renewable energy, and the modelling shows it will be a worse outcome for renewables compared to business as usual.

“As a jurisdiction that will have 100% of our electricity coming from renewables in two years time, under the proposal put forward, we would be doing the heavy lifting and allowing others off the hook. This is not something that we can accept.

“(The NEG) will do little to prevent potentially catastrophic climate change, given the emissions targets that are the foundation of the NEG are clearly incompatible with climate science, and with our Paris Commitments.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

58 Comments
  1. DevMac 7 months ago

    Still, Turnbull is leading an anti-renewables government.

    • Hettie 7 months ago

      I have come to the conclusion that the Coalition is completely value free. Their only motivation is to please whoever will ensure they keep their bums on the Treasury benches.
      That happens to be the coal lobby, ably abetted by Murdoch.
      If a lobby devoted to the extinction of all food crops looked more promising, they would switch aliegance faster than you can blink.

      • MaxG 7 months ago

        Spot on!

  2. Joe 7 months ago

    Here in Sydney we don’t get to hear that much from Shane Rattenbury. But as a ‘ soul RE brother’ of Premier Jay the Shane also gives The NEG a serve. As the leading jurisdictions in RE I am thinking that they ( the Jay and the Shane ) must be onto something. I saw the Joshie in Parliament question time this week where he gave Premier Jay another almighty spray for giving ( in Joshie’s opinion ) SA the highest electricity prices in the country because of Premier Jay’s the RE idiocy. And then the Joshie claimed that The COAlition is delivering hundreds of dollars of savings off consumers power bills via …The NEG ( it hasn’t started yet ) and those magic letters from the Energy majors offering lower cost energy plans to consumers. I’d love to know where The ACT sits on the comparison chart for power prices in Australia’s state and territory jurisdictions.

    • David Osmond 7 months ago

      ACT along with Tassie pay the lowest prices for electricity out of the states or territory, Currently ACT pays 23.68c/kWh, compared to 30.57c for NSW, 33.13 for Vic, 37.79c for Tas, 27.96 cfor SE QLD, 23.62 for Tas, 30.13c for WA and 25.88c for NT

      https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/bf56a5d5-e2b2-4c21-90ed-79dda97eb8a4/2017-Residential-Electricity-Price-Trends.pdf

      • Lance Collins 7 months ago

        My December bill in Melbourne from Pacific Hydro was 19.8 cents peak.
        It certainly pays to shop around.

      • Joe 7 months ago

        David, thanks for the info. Now I see why the Joshie is conveniently so quiet on ACT and energy matters.

      • itdoesntaddup 7 months ago

        Perhaps you know how ACT manages to get the power it purchased from the Hornsdale wind farm in South Australia, especially when the interconnectors to Victoria are flowing into South Australia. If they can work thaat kind of magic, I’m sure a little financial accounting magic comes easily.

        • Mike Westerman 7 months ago

          Yes, same magic you ascribe to nukes and markets…

  3. MaxG 7 months ago

    It is simply sad that these idiots actually matter, being legislators. They are worse than lawyers and should be sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

    • Joe 7 months ago

      Max, please….we all know better than to wilfully pollute our precious oceans.

      • MaxG 7 months ago

        ROFL

  4. Hettie 7 months ago

    How very predictable. The Coalition, knowing their days are numbered, desperately scrambling to lock in as many obstacles to renewables as they can, in a bid to keep their big donors happy.
    COAG, it’s up to you and the Senate to ensure that they do not succeed in this ugly, corrupt endeavor.
    What planet do they think they will live on when this one is fried?

    • Joe 7 months ago

      …..hop aboard the Elon’s… Rocket to Mars?

    • david_fta 7 months ago

      THey can lock in as many variables as they like under their NEG, as soon as we get an honest honourable government the NEG will be made redundant.

      • Ken Dyer 7 months ago

        Honest, honourable government, honestly? I live in hope (not that small town in Minnesota).

        • david_fta 7 months ago

          You’re quite right, I’m being much too optimistic. It should read

          “They can lock in as many variables as they like under their NEG, as soon as we get a less dishonest and less dishonourable government the NEG will be made redundant.

          • Nick Kemp 7 months ago

            I wonder what Canberra would look like with a green majority for a term or two?

          • david_fta 7 months ago

            If you’re an enrolled ACT voter, I’d encourage you to test that idea, I’m an enrolled voter in God/Pauline-zone Queensland.

            For me, I’m waiting for my fellow voters to realise that at least one of these is a figment of their imaginations.

    • Ken Dyer 7 months ago

      Well said Hettie!
      As I have stated elsewhere, the AEMC should be the very first casualty when the Labor Government gets in. It is an anachronism of the Howard years, that was given a new lease of life by Abbott.

  5. Cooma Doug 7 months ago

    I turned the radio on in the car at 2pm today. Josh was speaking in parliament thanking some scientist who produced a report, presented to the government today. It is all about the NEG and the road ahead.
    Josh yelled loudly that it was very strongly in support of the value and economics of “carbon capture and storage:. He yelled how wonderful the NEG was and finally the scientific approval.

    Perhaps the scientist is his new girl friend.

    • Hettie 7 months ago

      We could really do with emoticons, here, to express our fury.

      • Ken Dyer 7 months ago

        Elections would be more effective.

        • Hettie 7 months ago

          But hardly within the power of Disqus to provide.

    • Joe 7 months ago

      …ya can’t be a Minister and have more than one ‘partner’ at a time….oh wait… yes you can if you are Baaaananaby Joyce.

      • mick 7 months ago

        aint he the gift that keeps on giving

        • Ken Dyer 7 months ago

          And now we have the unedifying example of the Prime Minister of Australia banning sex between consenting adults when one is a government minister and the other is staff. The mind boggles. This is the mob that is supposedly running the country. It might stop the rooting, but will it stop the rorting of this morally bankrupt COALition?

          • mick 7 months ago

            hah i thought turnbull was trying to wipe out the joyce gene pool

          • Joe 7 months ago

            Just recently we had the LGBTIQ community have their ‘personal relationships’ put under the public microscope via Turnbull’s sponsorship of the Marriage Equality Postal Survey. And there was Baaaaanaby as Turnbull’s No 1 cheerleader. with his helpful thoughts about ‘love’. Then last night Two Tongues Turnbull comes out with his new code of ‘mis’ conduct for Ministers. I’m wondering why we can’t have a postal survey on Baaaaaaaanaby Joyce and his partner’s relationship whilst they were on the public purse. Isn’t it fair that we get to put Baaaaanaby under the public microscope and decide their fate just like he did to the LGBTIQ community?

          • Ken Dyer 7 months ago

            Thereby showing just what a hypocrite Joyce is. It has long been an unwritten law in business that you don’t pee in your own backyard, as it has been proven time and time again that affairs between staff are really disruptive, and no doubt you have also witnessed this throughout your working life as i have on several occasions.
            What really gets me is the spineless way Turnbull has now painted every MP as a potential recreational inseminator by banning rooting, because Barnyard is that selfish and stupid not to resign gracefully because of his reproductive folly. Talk about shades of Trump! ROFL!
            I am looking forward to the next opinion poll, and election.

          • Joe 7 months ago

            The next Rupert Newspoll, Two Tongues Turnbull’s bible for holding onto the Leadership job, is I think due this Monday. Remember that the Two Tonguer rolled the Mad Monk after 30 consecutive Newspoll losses….the Two Tonguers batting stands at 26 and 0…..we’ve only got 4 more Newspolls to go!

          • Hettie 7 months ago

            Note that according to the Reachtel poll, to which I was a respondent, support for this creep in the electorate has dropped from 63% at the byelection, to about 45% now.
            New England may be daft, but it doesn’t like cheats.

          • Joe 7 months ago

            Gee, it didn’t take long for the big drop. Even without his extra curricular dalliances I always thought he was a dud.

          • Hettie 7 months ago

            Well of course he is. A drunken, philandering, thieving corrupt dud.
            But with a lot in common with old Joh BP.
            Incoherent, patronising, total con artist. Beloved of farmers, even while he’s ripping them off .

          • Joe 7 months ago

            I always wondered if the Johannes and the Barnaby weren’t related and the more we see Bananabee unravel the more the similarities ( bad ones ) between the two are revealed

          • Nick Kemp 7 months ago

            Well, you see, the beetroot has twice as much experience about love, families and fatherhood than many married men

          • Joe 7 months ago

            That ‘extra experience’ has left him slightly more pickled.

  6. Roger Franklin 7 months ago

    The NEG seems to be turning into yet another Tax Payer funded Train Wreck. It is interesting to think that they believe they can introduce legislation to at best limit innovation. Very poor form and from a Govt that promoted innovation to be acting in this way.

    • Hettie 7 months ago

      At least the train has been having difficulty getting up to speed.
      Pretty typical of everything this innovative, nimble Gov’t attempts, really.
      I guess we should be grateful that they are so incompetent, inept, unbelievably hopeless.
      Despite all evidence, they are too arrogant to accept the fact of their incompetence, and so take no steps to prepare for failure.
      Imagine how much worse things would be if they had any skill at all in advancing their horrific agenda.
      The only thing they are good at is corruption.

  7. Jon 7 months ago

    It does sound like it could be a workable solution IF it had a decent emissions reduction target based on Giles article.
    Hopefully COAG can get some movement there, QLD was unable to vote last time, guessing with upcoming elections SA won’t be able to cite this time :/.
    Hopefully Vic and/or Tas who both have emissions reduction targets that won’t be met by the current NEG targets will vote differently this time.

  8. Chris Fraser 7 months ago

    This attempt to control the growth of renewables by not increasing the RET (to a value similar to the Paris Agreement) must be part of a cunning plan.The decision to not create LGCs from new investment after 2020 comes with final acceptance and anticipation that all new generation investment will be exclusively from renewable technologies. (Storage is another question … I suspect they are not planning for it , yet it’s going to be a consequence of proliferation of renewables).The best part of the cunning plan is that costs of all new generation will be paid for with retail tariffs. All the while ageing fossil fuel generators will be limping along on public support until such time as they choose to gracefully exit without LGC pressures. Perhaps that’s how they figure emissions will reduce.

    • Peter F 7 months ago

      The storage problem is well on the way to solving itself. Wind and solar plants are almost as often as not, installing storage
      1. to enable them to participate in the FCAS markets and increase revenue streams
      2. Soon be able to bid more aggressively when the 5/5 rule is introduced and therefore increase revenue
      3. To reduce sales at low prices and increase sales at high prices
      4. to reduce the risk of curtailment.

      By 2030 it is quite likely that 60% of plants will have at least 25% x 1-2 hour storage
      Customers by the thousands are installing them and by 2030 we may well have the equivalent of 2,000,000 behind the meter 5 kW/10 kWh systems

      Just like France’s nuclear provides 72% of annual generation but only 50% of peak, a 50% renewable grid can still draw 60% of supply from coal and gas on some peak days. To reach an annual 50% renewables target will have roughly 20 GW of solar and 20 GW of PV

      On a hot low wind day like we have had this summer wind and solar might only supply 4-6 MW directly of the 32-33 MW we might need. By that time we might have 6-7 GW from existing hydro, 5-6 GW behind the meter and 60% x 40* 25% i.e. 3-5 GW from renewable plants i.e. 18-24 GW leaving only 10-15 GW from demand response, gas and coal. Demand response could be 2-3 GW, gas 4-8 GW leaving somewhere between zero and 9 GW from coal.

      In conclusion if current trends in behind the meter and at generator storage continue and there is no solar thermal,or pumped hydro built, we could still safely close 65% of our coal plants as long as retiring gas plants are replaced

      • itdoesntaddup 7 months ago

        Storage is about GWh, not GW. If we take your example – assuming you meant GW throughout – the we have 33-6-7GW =20GW as demand to be met from storage, fossil fuels and power cuts. That’s 480GWh per day or 3,721 Musk Big Batteries fully charged or 35,555,556 Powerwalls at 13.5kWh each. PER DAY of a spell of uncooperative weather, which could easily last a week.

        • Ren Stimpy 7 months ago

          Battery storage is about reaction time.

          It doesn’t need to pinch-hit for power losses for a full week ffs. It only needs to sustain supply whilst other slow-reacting longevity sources of supply start up on their very slow gradient (a day or two). Rather that than they be running – at huge cost in the background all the time – just in case, like the coal and gas backup plants would.

          Fast reaction grid battery power from grid batteries is the missing link that our grid always needed and it can now reduce costs in a huge and smarter way.

          • itdoesntaddup 7 months ago

            Fast reaction batteries were never needed in the past, because there was always more than adequate grid inertia, governor response, spinning reserve etc. available within the system. Its contribution remains small scale and largely experimental in the context of NEM. I’d agree it it utterly inadequate t handle the real storage issues that come up with high levels of renewables penetration.

          • Greg Hudson 7 months ago

            Fast reaction batteries didn’t exist in the past, so you are correct (in a convoluted manner) in saying they were not needed in the past. Now they ARE here, let them start screwing the incumbents (Gas?) for all they can.

          • itdoesntaddup 7 months ago

            It’s not the incumbents who get screwed – it’s the customers:

            https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-setting-market-prices-including-at-14200-cap-58052/

          • Peter F 7 months ago

            That is because a) other competitors chose not to offer capacity and b) excessive market concentration in South Australia.
            If you look at summer power prices in SA in 2016/2017 vs 2017/18 you will find the premium compared to Victoria and NSW declined

          • Peter F 7 months ago

            It can remain small scale. As I explained in detail above only about 4% of peak demand needs to come from new technology storage on a peak day in a 50% renewable grid. Extending the low wind period to 3 days but adding pumped hydro and solar thermal means that batteries will still only provide an even lower share of energy.

            If you think there will be little wind for 3 days then perhaps we need 25% of small customers with batteries (35 GWh) and another, six Solar Reserve systems, (26 GWh + generation of 19 GWh) and eight pumped hydro systems like Kidston (16 GWh) as well as 6 GWh at wind and solar farms for a total of 102 GWh of which about 40GWh comes from batteries out of total demand of 1,800 GWh. so batteries only supply 2% of power over 3 days

            The interesting thing about having more storage is that it means you can run the best coal and gas plants harder so reciprocating and CC plants will dispace OC gas, while high efficiency coal will displace Mt. Piper, Liddell and Yallourn so fuel consumption will fall even faster than generation.

        • Peter F 7 months ago

          There are two key metrics, power and energy.
          Non co-operative weather does not ever last a week. The sun comes up every day and the wind blows every day. If it is cloudy, solar still generates between 10 and 30% of rated capacity and the whole of the NEM is never covered with cloud. The longest very low wind periods are 20 hours. Even then, if prevailing winds are low for a day or two in summer there are still morning and afternoon thermal breezes and at least one new wind farm is being built to take advantage of them.

          Very few of Australia’s wind farms will be the older types with 90 m diameter turbines tied to 3MW rotors. Newer farms will have 126-155 m diameter rotors on 15-40m taller towers and so produce 2-10 times as much power in light winds, so by the time we have 20 GW of wind spread throughout the grid, 80%+ will be low wind designs and minimum 30 minute wind will be about 5% and minimum 24 hour will be about 8-12%. Three days no less than 15%

          Demand is not constant through the day. If it was we could close half our generators. Peak day demand is about 620GWh or an average of 26GW. 3 day peak is about 1800 GWh

          A peak day i.e by definition in Australia, sunny with at least some thermal breezes. So over the day we will have around 10% CF for wind and 75% of theoretical output from solar. Summer output from rooftop solar is more than 6 kwh per kW and tracking solar about 9-10. So solar will still produce on the peak day about 150GWh. Similarly even a very low wind day about 40 GWh will produced from wind. Hydro about 150 GWh. i.e. total still day large renewables of 340 GWh plus around 20GWg from bagasse, landfill gas, waste to energy etc.

          Demand response is not about shutting down industry it is about shifting demand and occasional slight inconvenience like letting office and shop temperatures rise 3C for a few hours 3-5 days per year for 3-4 hours. In any case it is not a major contributor to the system. Its purpose is peak limitation not long term storage. It may reduce daily energy use by 1-2% hardly enough to notice.

          Using the estimates of storage I quoted above and using a typical 2.5MWh/MW for behind the meter storage, customer and generator batteries will provide about 30GWh. Without any new pumped hydro or solar thermal

          At 50% renewables we will still have 10GW of gas and 7-9 GW of coal. If a low wind period is forecast, we should be able to run at least 75% of the coal and gas for a day i.e. 320 GW+ from coal and gas or a total of 340+20+30+320 = 710 GWh with only 4% of it coming from new storage. Or if you want to express it in terms of powerwalls 2.3m of them or about 15% of households and small businesses in the NEM

          • Mike Westerman 7 months ago

            Thanks Peter for the succinct and rational outline, tho’ it’s lost of some who prefer ideology to evidence. It makes it easier to understand the nexus between retirement of old coal and demand (and revenue likely available) for new storage.

  9. Peter F 7 months ago

    The NEG might be evolving but that just means that you are applying the lipstick more artfully to the pig.

    However well it is designed on day one, it will inevitably be inflexible and complex, which will allow gaming by practitioners and will delay technology adoption even those technologies which make coal and gas more effective.
    This is the reality of multi-layer rules even within companies let alone with competing stakeholders such as this mess will be. If it takes 5-6 years to get a rule change now what will it be like when this extra layer is completed.
    Then we come to the question of the design. A combination of the best engineering, economic and legal talent in the country will be severely tested in trying to design rules for reliability which cover all the variables in the most complex machine in the world and by the time they were gazetted, circumstances will change.

    In fact SA seems to have solved its generation reliability problem in less than a year with the help of AEMO. Depending on what the actual availability of its gas plants was, it had a nominal reserve margin around 30% of demand. Max demand according to the AER was 2500 MW and I think maximum gas generation was around 2,200 MW leaving 800 MW of commercial plants and 280 MW of emergency generators unused.
    More rooftop solar, more batteries behind the meter both individually owned and VPP, more on grid storage, tracking solar at Port Augusta and at least one windfarm optimally located for afternoon thermal winds will probably see summer peak gas generation drop below 2,000 MW next summer.
    If my predictions prove correct and the new gas power plant is established at Bolivar, in a couple of years the government could sell it to a new private competitor or even a customer owned consortium, to bring additional competition into the market and put further downward pressure on prices

  10. Patrick Comerford 7 months ago

    Think NEG. Think NBN

    • Joe 7 months ago

      …please do not awaken the the nightmare that is Turnbull’s NBN.

  11. Ken Fabian 7 months ago

    Still no actual policy from the LNP. If the NEG doesn’t manage to be massaged into a real policy that can’t garner the support needed they will blame everyone but themselves for that. Yet for a party that doesn’t want to face the climate issue with eyes open and constantly panders to the requirement of irrational rejectors of climate science and coal spruikers, delay itself can be seen as a desirable achievement.

    Delay and blameshifting – I’m surprised they can keep getting away with it. But their problem is not how to fix climate and energy policy but how to prevent their (deliberately encouraged in their delusions) climate denier base from leaking to One Nation or Australian Conservatives whilst somehow preventing the growing acceptance of climate science and the need to act leading to leaking of moderates to Labor. The former are more “core” membership than the moderates so pandering to climate science deniers will continue to take precedence.

    Thus Delay and Blameshifting continues, despite obvious failing as the principle response to climate, emission and energy. They are relying on Labor to screw up their own climate, emissions and energy policies enough to look not so bad after all – and Labor, given their history of cowardice on these issues could easily live up to their low expectations.

  12. Nick Kemp 7 months ago

    Isn’t everyone just ignoring the LNP and getting on with it these days

  13. Ray Miller 7 months ago

    I think its all about supporting coal, as our export markets threaten to evaporate. South Korea who apparently import $6 Billion worth of Australian Coal each year want to close down their coal power plants. Something about Paris agreement and wanting a future for their citizens.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/16/south-koreas-ahn-hee-jung-on-coal-trade-after-paris-everything-should-change
    Maybe we should bottle our renewables and sell it to them instead?

    • Joe 7 months ago

      The Coal Kissers keep banging on about how the world can’t do without that ‘little black wonder rock’. Yet South Korea last year and Chile & Germany this year are publicly declaring that Big Coal is coming to an end.

Comments are closed.