Corbell gets energy ministers to factor in carbon emissions, push storage

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

ACT energy minister convinces state, federal counterparts to factor in emissions, push battery storage and coal plant retirement.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

ACT energy and environment minister Simon Corbell has achieved a significant victory on the national policy agenda, winning agreement from state and federal energy ministers to take carbon emission seriously in setting energy policy.

aquion-energy-ae1-battery
Simon Corbell wants more of these in the electricity system ….

It might seem like a statement of the bleeding obvious, given the critical role that electricity plays in Australian national emissions (more than one third), but energy and environmental policies do not often meet.

A perfect illustration is the federal government Energy White Paper, which was based on a scenario that would allow for a 4°C increasing in average global warming, rather than the 2C limit that the government says it has signed up to,

The one exception is in the ACT, where Corbell has combined the energy and the environmental portfolios, and implemented ambitious plans to have 90 per cent renewables by 2020, and slash emissions by 40 per cent.

At the COAG Energy Council meeting in Perth on Thursday, Corbell won support for his strategic issues paper that  recognised rooftop solar plus battery storage as a key abatement technology, proposed to align renewable energy policies, and to formulate a plan to retire 5,000MW of redundant coal fired capacity.

“While energy and carbon policies have traditionally been considered separately their interactions are undeniable,” Corbell said in a statement.

“Climate change can no longer be considered as only an environmental issue. It must now be recognised as a major structural reform agenda for energy ministers and the energy sector.”

and less of these.
… and less of these.

Corbell says this was accepted unanimously, including by federal industry minister Ian Macfarlane.

“This is welcome development,” Corbell told RenewEconomy. “Energy policy and climate policy are related and should be considered as such.

“For first time we have a statement from this government body saying climate and energy policy must be considered in co-ordinated manner and the governance of the NEM will be a very important part of Australia’s efforts.

“We need to be ahead of the curve on this, and we felt we weren’t.”

Corbell says the agreement will set in train a process where governments and energy market institutions can plan the decarbonisation of the National Electricity Market, a process that Labor intends to accelerate with its 50 per cent renewable energy target for 2030.

Among the major issues is how regulatory frameworks can enable greater consumer choices in relation to new products and services, such as solar plus battery storage.

The ministers agreed to recognise emerging solar-battery storage products as a potential contributor to decarbonisation and wholesale market development; to develop clear and consistent frameworks for the deployment of the technologies, and to address inefficient battier to solar-battery storage development.

Presumably, this includes the structure of tariffs that might dissuade the adoption of such technologies. It calls on the Australian Energy Market Operator to look at how deployment of solar and battery storage can be accelerated.

AEMO recently conducted a study which suggested that three out of four households would add battery storage to new rooftop solar systems. But its analysis did not include the retrofit market.

The other big issues is the problem of redundant coal-fired generators. Corbell’s paper says it is clear that at least 5,000MW of coal-fired power needs to exit the market.

The paper calls for the AEMO to develop and consider scenarios in which the emissions intensity of generators can be used to influence the distribution and timing of generator exit.

“Around 5,000 MW of generation needs to exit the market to allow remaining generators to at least cover their operating costs,” it says.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 Comments
  1. Ray Miller 4 years ago

    Who would have thought! Energy and Environment considerations in the same room? One only has to look at the right of this page as I write this to observe the Renewables on line; TAS100%, SA75%, my own PV system 8:30-16:30 off the grid on a rainy day >100% net for the day. The real laggard is VIC with so much lignite and emissions rivaling the worst 20th century plants. Yes time to focus on the real problem, close the worst ones down ASAP. Let NSA (No Substance Abbot) eat coal since he thinks it is so good.

    • mick 4 years ago

      glad you saw it I thought id knocked myself out and woken up in a parallel universe

  2. Farmer Dave 4 years ago

    Congratulations to Simon Corbell; this is a move of fundamental importance. Structural issues like this matter a lot. It is so obvious that good policy to reduce climate risks is mainly about energy, that it is tempting to conclude that governments which separate the two matters do it because they don’t want good climate policy.

    An example of the craziness that separating climate and energy policy occurred in Tasmania when the government brought out an energy policy document, which while otherwise having some good points dodged discussing climate change altogether, leaving that to some other process which seems since to have gone into hiding. The energy statement included a discussion of ways to extend the gas grid in Tasmania in order to increase the use of gas, a section which lead one public submission to ask “which part of getting off fossil fuels did the writer not understand?”

    Language is as important as structure and lines of responsibility, and so the next improvement to look for is when politicians start saying “reducing fossil fuel use” instead of saying “reducing emissions”. I’m of the view that most of the discussion about reducing emissions in Australia to date has hindered, rather than helped the cause of reducing climate risks, and the reason is that it has mostly been about “reducing emissions” and not about “reducing fossil fuels”, or, even better, “phasing out coal, oil and gas”. It would be really interesting to know if anyone has done an opinion poll to see what percentage of Australians associate emissions reduction with phasing out coal, oil and gas.

    A pedant might argue that “reducing emissions” is not the same as “reducing use of coal, oil and gas”, but the only difference would be the adoption of carbon capture and storage, and that hasn’t even signed on to run the race, let alone gone to the starter’s gate.

  3. Rob G 4 years ago

    Corbell is a true renewables hero – shining a light of reason. We need a lot more like him.

Comments are closed.

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