RET under new threat from cross benchers after Lambie quits PUP

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The former Palmer United Party’s new turn as an Independent means the RET is even more likely to be sliced and diced, but not by the Coalition you think.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
lmabie
source: the australian

The resignation of Jacqui Lambie from the Palmer United Party on Monday has added yet another layer of confusion to Australia’s Renewable Energy Target policy saga, with only one thing looking certain: the target is destined to be sliced and diced.

The question is, who will wield the knife? Will it be the Coalition, or a so-called “coalition of common sense”?

Lambie has previously vowed to block all Abbott government changes, not least of all the RET, and can now more easily do so from her new position on the cross benches.

But according to The Guardian’s Lenore Taylor, DLP Senator David Leyonhjelm is courting cross-bench votes for his own version of a plan to wind back the RET after Lambie indicated she could vote for RET changes if the government makes concessions over defence force pay.

Leyonhjelm says a loose “coalition of common sense” of independent and minor party senators have a range of concerns about the existing RET – which requires 41,000 gigawatt hours of electricity to be sourced from renewables by 2020.

“I am working on an alternative crossbench proposal … it is nowhere near final but it would solve some of the problems we are facing … including the problem of hitting the penalty price,” Leyonhjelm told Guardian Australia.

“I have a plan on the table and I’m trying to get the crossbench numbers on that now.”

Leyonhjelm and Family First senator Bob Day support a reduction in the RET, and Day told the Guardian he strongly supported Lambie’s call for the inclusion of existing hydro in the scheme.

This, in fact, is not that far different from what Clive Palmer was considering, when he canvassed earlier this month the possibility of including pre-existing hydro. As we noted in our story, Can Palmer be trusted to save the RET, all conservative parties seem to be working to the same outcome, to cut the RET from the current 41,000GWh target.

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has been on record saying the government suppers a “51,000GWjh” target, but that would include pre-existing hydro (15,000GWh) and rooftop solar (10,000GWh). So the result is the 26,000GWh for new generation that they are seeking under their “real 20 per cent” scenario.

(Right now, the pre-existing hydro in Tasmania and Snowy River only claim RET certificates (LGCs) if they produce above a certain baseline. Including them in the RET officially would mean that facilities built decades ago would get a subsidy, but the equivalent amount of new generation (wind or solar) would not.

As for the newly independent Lambie, who quit the PUP this morning after an ongoing feud with the party’s founder and leader Clive Palmer, she is on the record as opposing the proposed wind-back of the 20 per cent by 2020 renewables target, describing it as an “illegitimate reform.”

Lambie has also claimed the RET to be of vital economic importance for Tasmania, and that axing it would threaten thousands of jobs; indeed, the state’s renewables industry is still smarting from Hydro Tasmania’s dumping of a $2 billion wind farm planned for King Island, a decision that has at least partly been attributed to uncertainty surrounding the RET.

But she’s not exactly pro-renewables either, having once indicated she would be open to discussions with the government about its plan to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – which has so far been opposed by the two remaining PUP senators, as well as Muir and Xenophon.

Here’s some of Lambie in a speech to Parliament on her resignation:

“We’re having great difficulties down in Tasmania. There’s 10,000 direct and indirect jobs on the line here over the RET and the clean finance situation that we’re in, so I just want to get to the bottom of it. I’d like to see also with Tasmania that the hydro … is counted … it’s 100% renewable energy down in Tasmania and basically we’ve been getting the worst end when it comes to the RET.

“I am now free to negotiate with the government and other members of this parliament in good faith and for the best interests of my Tasmania, for reform of the following matters: the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the renewable energy target.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 Comments
  1. Rob G 5 years ago

    The RET as it stands would help pump more money into Tassie, killing it would hurt. Lambie will be in a tricky position when Abbott will throw various ‘help Tassie’ deals at her, but if she is smart she’ll know The RET advantage for Tasmania is too big to throw away. She also seems to enjoy sticking to to the Abbott government as it makes her look like a fighter for the little guys (in this case Tassie).

    • Stephen 5 years ago

      Like when Lambie voted to repeal the Carbon Price which clearly wasn’t in Tasmania’s best interest?

      “There will be no compensation for the resulting loss of hundreds of jobs and over $200 million in lost revenues. Compensation for these losses to Tasmania should have been be an essential pre-condition of passing the bill. Tasmania’s coalition senators and Senator Lambie have been strangely quiet on this”

      “If Tasmania’s new PUP senator Jacqui Lambie is sincere in saying she will always put Tasmanian interests first, then she could do no better than to vote against the repeal of the price on carbon. She he would advocate for a strong price on carbon, both nationally and internationally. At the very least she should vote for retention of a carbon pricing mechanism with no fixed price.”

      https://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/the-price-of-carbon-a-view-from-the-mendicant-state-31484

      • Rob G 5 years ago

        The Carbon Tax is seen very differently to the RET by the public. Abbott’s naming it a ‘Tax’ got many ignorant people scared and so for Lambie to vote it out she played to the supposed popular view. Many people still don’t understand the truly positive affect the Carbon Tax was having. The RET, however, doesn’t have the same stigma and is supported in principal by most Australians (80% thereabouts) Lambie would have the be out of her mind to go against something with the level of support. (Mind you, the jury is still out on what exactly goes on in her head…)

  2. Alen T 5 years ago

    The submission to the RET review from Hydro Tas clearly states that it wishes for RET to remain unchanged, so is there a reason why someone from Hydro Tas (preferably someone rich & well hung) isn’t going over there and explaining to her that if she wants to honestly support and create Tasmanian jobs, she should promote and help retain the initial target and not spread Macfarlane’s BS.

  3. kristian handberg 5 years ago

    What. A. Mess.

Comments are closed.

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