Tesla says National Energy Guarantee needs to be much more ambitious, and Energy Security Board needs to catch up with technologies like battery storage.
Industry warns NEG too complex, likely to boost prices, cut competition. If it won’t reduce emissions either, what exactly is the point?
New modelling confirms little if any new renewable energy investment will be made under the NEG. But it reveals that the big savings the Coalition is claiming from the NEG are driven almost entirely by the policy it sought to kill – the renewable energy target.
ESB chair Kerry Schott says it will be up to the states to act if they want higher emissions targets.
Schott says NEG modelling assumes “low end” of wind and solar costs, defying recent evidence. But ESB did admit there is much work to do on policy, dispatchability had yet to be defined, new coal unlikely to get a look in, and states free to pursue own targets.
Energy Security Board to use vastly inflated costs of wind and solar to justify its National Energy Guarantee. By using prices around 30-40 per cent above actual costs, will support its argument for little new wind and solar to be built in the coming decade.
This plan to provide a plan is almost the worst outcome possible for investment certainty. If more detail doesn’t emerge soon, it could be as bad for renewables as the Abbott years.
Chair of newly formed Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott, says that by harnessing demand management in Australia, “we can all stop worrying about building new plants of any description.”