Coalition tables bill for cuts to RET, inclusion of wood waste

Legislation to cut Australia’s renewable energy target from 41,000GWh by 2020 to 33,000GWh was tabled in federal parliament on Wednesday morning, after bipartisan support for the deal was finally secured between the Abbott government and the Labor Opposition.

canberra_lake_george_wind

The Clean Energy Council, which has given the 33,000GWh figure its stamp of approval, said quick passage of the Bill through parliament was essential to unlock more than $10 billion in investment, with around 6GW of new capacity needing to be built.

The cut has been controversial, and justified only by the Coalition’s hotly disputed claims that a 41,000GWh target could not be met. That was only true if the policy uncertainty they created continued.

The reduced target has also sparked claims it will favour wind energy over solar energy, because of the latter’s higher costs at the moment. However, a decision by the government to retain the current interim targets until 2017, and then allow a gradual phase-in to 33,000GWh by 2030 may favour the solar sector.

“Large-scale solar PV will be advantaged by the proposed schedule, compared to the simpler approach of capping the policy at 33TWh in 2019,” said Leonard Quong, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
“By having a more gradual trajectory, the market can more evenly build new capacity to meet the target. With the capital costs of solar generation forecast to continue falling at a much faster rate than wind over the coming years, as we’ve seen in recent ones, any delay to when new capacity is needed will benefit solar.”

CEC CEO Kane Thornton said in a statement that the “signs are good that the renewable energy industry, which has languished in an environment of policy uncertainty and lost opportunity for more than a year, is ready and waiting to grab hold of the many opportunities in the wind – and the sun, the waves and much more.

He said about 6,500 jobs and $10 billion worth of investment are set to be created by the large-scale renewable energy sector alone. “With household renewables included, this takes the total up to 15,200 jobs and $40.4 billion worth of investment over the life of the scheme,” he said.

However, Thornton also advised parliamentarians to avoid any “perverse political outcomes …caused by a messy negotiation with cross-bench senators in search of an agreement on native wood waste” – a somewhat contentious part of the RET deal, added at the last minute by the Coalition, that is strongly opposed by the Greens and environmental groups.

Thornton said between 30-50 major projects would be built to meet the 33,000 gigawatt-hour target, along with hundreds of medium-scale solar projects from commercial and industrial businesses looking to manage their own electricity production and consumption.

“Medium-scale solar projects also tend to have much shorter lead times than large-scale power plants, and we can expect that the bipartisan deal on the RET will deliver many more of these projects into the future,” he said.

Thornton said there were already more than 40 projects – adding up to 6600MW – of approved projects in the pipeline, including:

– Stage one of Solar Choice’s $1 billion solar farm on Queensland’s Darling Downs;
– Westgen’s solar farm on the outskirts of Perth and a bioenergy plant in the works.
– FRV’s 150MW solar plant at Clare in Far North Queensland.
– Senvion’s CERES wind farm on South Australia’s Yorke Peninsula
– Conergy’s 35MW of large-scale solar
– CWP Renewables’ Sapphire Wind Farm in the New South Wales Northern Tablelands region.

“It’s a bad bill, Bill”: Greens, solar industry call on Shorten to reject RET deal

Of course, we’re not quite there yet. Not everyone is happy about today’s tabling of the new RET legislation.

Greens leader Richard di Natale has called on Opposition leader Bill Shorten to abandon the deal which he says allows for the burning of native forests, via the inclusion of wood waste in the 33,000GWh scheme.

“This is Bill Shorten’s first big test on the environment, and it’s time to walk away from this deal. Burning native trees is not renewable energy,” said Di Natale. “This deal is bad for the climate, bad for jobs, and a disaster for the environment,” he said.

Australia’s solar industry is also not happy with the watered down RET, arguing that it is a bad outcome for the large-scale solar sector, which stands to be crowded out of the scheme by wind farm projects.

“The Renewable Energy Target Bill tabled in Parliament today is a bad Bill, echoing a bad deal on the Renewable Energy Target,” said Australian Solar Council CEO John Grimes on Wednesday.

“Australians love solar, but the Abbott Government is the most anti-solar Government in Australia’s history. They stand with the big power companies against the interests of Australian families and small businesses,” he said.

Comments

8 responses to “Coalition tables bill for cuts to RET, inclusion of wood waste”

  1. barrie harrop Avatar
    barrie harrop

    burning wood is not viable for energy, so no need to worry.

    1. david H Avatar

      Barrie, I totally agree. Mass burning native forest waste for power generation is just not economically viable and therefore will not be supported by the private sector.

  2. Ken Dyer Avatar
    Ken Dyer

    Simple, reject the bill, it is dumb, stupid and dangerous.

  3. D. John Hunwick Avatar
    D. John Hunwick

    Every time I get to hope the Labor is committed to doing something positive about climate change etc, something like this comes along and I despair! Old native forests should be left out of it; small scale solar panels will continue to be purchased so big solar and wind can press ahead. As for 2017 review – if sense prevails Liberals will not hold the reins

    1. Rob G Avatar
      Rob G

      I have to admit, Labor’s vow to bring an ETS back has them going up in my book. It’s brave and totally the right thing to do. Even with Abbott, licking his lips thinking he can win another election on the “Axe the Tax” slogan. I’d like to think Australians have moved on from this, and if so, what a poke in the eye that would be for Abbott.

  4. electroteque Avatar
    electroteque

    The Liberals are only good at one thing. Cooking books, thieving and scheming and adding their tricks in at the last minute.

  5. David Rossiter Avatar
    David Rossiter

    Well at last the coalignition(sic) group gets its way. It now is publicising its contempt for the sanctity of renewable energy targets by reducing the targets to suit their ideology. Nothing subtle in this piece of legislation – lets stick with coal as ‘it is good for humanity’ and reduce renewables.

    Shame the slogan should be ‘energy is good for humanity’ and renewables are the way to of the future for jobs and the environment.

    There is no shame in setting a target and not meeting it for valid reasons. In this case a valid reason would be the Government deliberately dithering to create sovereign risk and prevent investment in renewables. This Government is now reducing the legislated target to meet the performance of the industry that has been subjected to a successful campaign of attrition by

    This excuse that the renewables industry could not meet the target is pathetic and invalid.

    Firstly the renewables industry could have met the target if sovereign risk had not raised its ugly head via a breakdown in bipartisanship and the appointment of a blatant climate denialist as the RET review chair – Dick Warburton. Secondly I still think the target could be met even at this late stage and thirdly the RET legislation has always provided for the case where, for whatever reason, insufficient RECs were available to meet the annual targets. exposure to sovereign risk.

    This lattermost provision – in effect a make good provision in the terms the Emission Reduction Fund has recently used – is done by providing a redeemable shortfall charge within the RET Act. That is if insufficient RECs were available in a given year for compliance under that year’s target liable parties (those who have to surrender RECs under the Act) could pay the shortfall charge and redeem it in subsequent years by offering RECs as they then became available. This approach enabled liable parties to subsequently become fully compliant by REC surrender if there was a shortfall in REC availability during any given year and acknowledged the inherent annual variability of REC production from some resources particularly from hydro, crop biomass and to some lesser extent from wind or sun.

    The redeemable shortfall charge was initially set at the expected purchase price of RECs (then $40/MWh) deliberately so that this was not seen as a financial penalty on liable parties for not surrendering RECs. Further in order to encourage compliance with the Act by REC surrender, the Act also allowed the regulator to publish a list of those who had complied by using the shortfall charge rather than by REC surrender in any given year. This list was called shaming list by retailers and was often used by retailers (who are the majority of liable parties) to keep their competitors as green as possible.
    Sad days for targets and compliance processes. Politics seems to have won here Labor has been dragged down to reducing a renewable energy target despite the target being properly designed to be resilient by using redeemable shortfall charges rather than penalties.

  6. john Avatar
    john

    What relevance does wood waste have for heavens sake I ask?

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