GreenPower scheme to collapse under proposed RET change

Hundreds of thousands of Australians who opted in to a government scheme to buy electricity from renewable energy sources, would be left high and dry if a recommendation from the Abbott-mandated Review into the Renewable Energy Target (RET) was adopted, an industry group has warned.

The federal government’s GreenPower Program invites households and businesses to voluntarily pay extra for “green power” to increase the percentage of renewable electricity generated above government-mandated targets.

GreenPowerThe RET review, which was handed to the government late last week, has recommended that these voluntary renewable energy electricity purchases now be included within the mandated annual RET targets.

The Alternative Technology Association (ATA) warned on Thursday that to go ahead with the recommendation would see the scheme, with 600,000 existing customers in Australia, quickly lose consumer support and collapse.

“GreenPower will basically collapse overnight if the federal government chooses to adopt this recommendation,” said ATA policy and research manager Damien Moyse.

“This scheme exists to provide a way for people who wish to go beyond the mandated targets and achieve up to 100% of their electricity consumption from renewable energy.

“If this additional amount is simply rolled into a fixed target that is going to be delivered anyway, irrespective of what choices any individual makes, then the incentive to buy GreenPower in the first place is completely eroded,” Moyse said.

“The members of the Warburton RET Review panel clearly did not understand the purpose and operational issues associated with GreenPower.”

Concern about the impact of this particular RET Review recommendation has coincided with an admission on Tuesday from Western Australian energy retailer Synergy, that money from WA participants in the GreenPower scheme had not been spent on suitable carbon offsets or renewable energy development in the company’s home market since 2008.

Synergy customers like Barbara Frey, from Mandurah to the south of Perth, have responded angrily.

“I’m furious about this. Like me, the majority of West Australians love renewable energy; no surprise that Mandurah was in the top 5 suburbs in Australia with the most solar PV.

“The attraction of investing in the Earthfriendly program was the opportunity to contribute to a clean energy future for WA. …yet Synergy tells me that they’ve been spending my premium elsewhere…. since 2010.

“Don’t they get it? People like me want to invest in renewable energy, and recognise that part of the cost of transition involves retiring assets that no longer serve the wellbeing and interests of the community. How hard does it have to be?”

In 2013, GreenPower purchases resulted in $80 million invested in Australia’s renewable energy industry.

“Hundreds of thousands of Australians have been voting with their wallets over the past 13 years for more renewable energy by buying GreenPower,” Moyse said. “It shows a widespread commitment for clean energy in this country.”

Moyse has caled on the government to respect the wishes of 600,000 GreenPower customers and leave the arrangements separate to annual targets under the RET.

Comments

11 responses to “GreenPower scheme to collapse under proposed RET change”

  1. Peter Campbell Avatar
    Peter Campbell

    “The members of the Warburton RET Review panel clearly did not
    understand the purpose and operational issues associated with
    GreenPower.”
    They know what they are doing and want to rub our noses in it.

  2. Chris Fraser Avatar
    Chris Fraser

    Once they decided to kill the expansion of the RET, or limit the amount of renewable energy output (as a proportion of the total extra demand) they had no choice but to roll Greenpower into the RET. I couldn’t imagine the RET Review Panel’s dismay if everyone decided to buy Greenpower in spite of them, and renewable energy investment became, sort of, well, out of their control. That’d be an uppercut to their vested interests.

    1. Rod Fletcher Avatar
      Rod Fletcher

      Great suggestion: buy Greenpower.
      With many being paid 0 to 6 cents per unit generated and this only having to travel next door via the grid, surely our Greenpower should be discounted and we not have to pay a 5 to 8 cent premium.

      1. Chris Fraser Avatar
        Chris Fraser

        Rod, soon there will be a time when solar, oriented especially for your circumstances, along with a small amount of storage, will help reduce your need to import too much energy of any kind, let alone the kind that could mothball all coal.

  3. David Rossiter Avatar
    David Rossiter

    And just to add how close RET and Greenpower are – Greenpower operators generally surrender RECs as verification that Greenpower is green!

  4. mboro house Avatar
    mboro house

    wouldn’t that be 600,000 that wont vote for this lot of wreckers…
    Time for a “Liberals for Solar” breakaway party similar to the effective “Liberals for Forests” group in WA, and bring about a change of attitude in the slumbering backbenchers . . .

  5. Rob G Avatar
    Rob G

    Should this all happen, those instigators in the government may find themselves before a commission, investigating the wilful destruction of an industry. I’d suggest that hearing be held in a large venue and that tickets be sold with 100% of the money going back into the renewable sector. It’s bound to be a sell out.

  6. kristian handberg Avatar

    Considering that GreenPower purchases are made solely at the purchaser’s cost/discretion, it is unacceptable for this commitment to be re-interpreted by others.
    Back in 2009 when the ETS was under deliberation, the message put out was to “cancel your GreenPower”. The logic was that the Rudd Government was going to baseline that year’s purchases for the ETS, such that subsequent purchases would only be recognised once they’d exceeded this baseline. This never eventuated but it didn’t stop loads of people from following this advice in an attempt to preserve the intent of their purchase.
    Fast-forward to 2014 and here we go again.

    1. Chris Fraser Avatar
      Chris Fraser

      To me there appears to be a clear difference between voluntary purchases and legislated requirements, otherwise logic indicates RET wouldn’t need to be legislated.

  7. michael Avatar
    michael

    Isn’t it just a national accounting exercise whether this extra portion is included in our targets or not? the outcome of buying these would still be the same as long as the outcome of the purchase wasn’t changed by those operating the scheme

    1. Chris Fraser Avatar
      Chris Fraser

      We should think about that for a moment, even assuming the voluntary purchases were spent in good faith.Not everyone agrees with spending an extra few percent in tariff costs to make only 20% of their energy from renewable sources. For some, 50% renewable or 100% renewable might be acceptable. The question then is what difference can individuals make ? For some it may be rooftop PV, where it is accessible to them. Others might consider efficiency gains, like insulation, to reduce gas or coal source electricity used in the home. Purchasing Greenpower is the other way of increasing renewable investment in your State (except WA !)

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