Using renewables as a political football is fraught with danger

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Coalition’s opening bid on RET negotiations offers interesting insight into renewable energy politics, including the votes attached to rooftop solar.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Conversation

Federal industry minister Ian Macfarlane has finally revealed his opening gambit on negotiations on the future of the Renewable Energy Target (RET). He and environment minister Greg Hunt have pledged to leave household solar alone but want deep cuts to targets for all other forms of renewable energy development.

This was not unexpected, and it is just a symbolic ambit claim, an opening position designed to accommodate future compromise. But it does highlight some interesting points about the politics of renewable energy.

First, the government understands that millions of votes are potentially at risk if it tries to cut incentives for home-scale rooftop solar panels. These subsidies, the small-scale component of the RET scheme, are worth around A$2,500 for a 3 kilowatt solar system, and have helped to encourage households to go solar by making panels more rooftops

Leaving the small-scale RET alone may also encourage homeowners to disengage from the debate over the large-scale RET, which deals with facilities such as wind turbines and solar farms, and the effects of competing energy choices on both industry and household power bills.

The government has to seek a balance between some disparate positions. Many Coalition MPs seem to loathe large-scale renewables, and there is a sense in some quarters that the RET is the focus of a symbolic battle with “green communists”, in which asking industry to continue subsidising renewables is seen as caving in to the climate “alarmists”.

At the same time, the powerful incumbent electricity and coal industries see the RET as cementing their feared “death spiral”. Their decades of unquestioned dominance are under challenge. But, as we have seen from recent statements by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey, these industries are very influential within the government.

Opposition support for renewables

On the other hand, Labor, the Greens and the crossbenchers are generally supportive of the RET in its present form. Apart from allowing the aluminium industry an exemption and maybe letting the 2020 target slip by a couple of years, there seems to be little interest in compromise.

There are some interesting individual threads to the issue. Independent senator Nick Xenophon seems to dislike wind energy, whereas his fellow independent Ricky Muir likes renewables: his background as a camper and former low-income rural worker means he understands renewable energy better than most politicians.

The failure of the Warburton review to make an objective economic case against maintaining (or even expanding) the RET has given these groups a powerful bargaining position. And the Clean Energy Council has sharpened its lobbying in a bid to capture public support.

Some state governments and prospective governments have suggested that any cut in the national RET could be offset by state-level commitments. South Australia has already increased its 2020 target, having met the previous target years ahead of schedule. The Australian Capital Territory has set an ambitious renewable energy goal, while Victoria’s Labor opposition (with support from the Greens) has flagged a possible renewables scheme if it wins next month’s election.

State action could be linked to rural jobs and revenue streams for struggling farmers who host renewable energy facilities: a much more attractive option than hosting coal seam gas wells.

The negotiations will be as much about managing views within the government as about finding a deal with Labor and the crossbenchers. Meanwhile, the electricity and coal industries will try to extend their age of entitlement while we confront the possibility of another record hot summer.

If some states firm up their commitments to neutralise any reduction in the RET, the government will be on a path to nowhere. If the government can maintain uncertainty, it can win through attrition, but at the risk of votes at the next election. For Labor and the crossbenchers, being seen as white knights by the public would boost their vote. I’m glad I’m not Ian Macfarlane.The Conversation

Alan Pears AM provides advice to a range of sustainable energy and community groups. He and his superannuation funds own shares in the renewable energy industry. He sometimes receives funding from sustainable energy industry organisations and individual companies although, at present he is not receiving such funding.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Rob G 5 years ago

    The whole RET battle has to considered as one of the most defining in our politics today. Either you’re on board with it or you oppose it. The next election will be decided on it. For renewables, the case is simple and clear – do you want clean energy and a pathway laid out for positive climate action? Well over 70% of Australians do. What we see from those who oppose it, is choice being taken away (we’ ll decide how energy is made – not you joe public!), we see actions that go against our climate problems. We scare tactics, deals with big coal and jobs and investment lost in what should be the next big industry. Nothing but wilful economic destruction. If you support this government’s attitude, the you need to accept what comes with it.

    For me, this has been the first truly visible time in our politics, we have seen how corporations control governments for their own good. And how those decisions go against the good of the voting public. If it was a movie it would be you classic story of good verses evil, public verses corporation and rich verses poor.

    Expand that thought further to election time, both Labor and the Greens can sell themselves as the good guys. The won’t punish students or pensioners, they won’t tax the sick, the won’t wreck the renewable industry, they won’t be told what to do by Murdoch or big coal, they won’t hack up Tasmania’s forests or pollute the Great Barrier Reef…. And most of all the won’t lie like Abbott has. Sounds like an election winner.

    • Alen T 5 years ago

      It sounds like an election winner, but I’m starting to question if Labor in particular has the leadership to actually pull this off. So many opportunities for them to capitalise on the many many mistakes Abbott and and his LNP is making, and yet there is still only one voice heard..the “coal is good for humanity” and anti-renewable voice seems to drown out any and all noise. They let them get away with the carbon tax scaremongering and in part lost an election to their inability to defend a scheme, which I’m certain you are aware is increasingly being more adopted in the rest of the world (carbon price in its various forms), including the world’s single biggest polluter and our most important trading partner, China! Is it not telling in itself when we have to rely on other nations to bring up climate change in international forums (G20) just to have ANY national recognition on this topic.

  2. john 5 years ago

    The problem is this.
    If you buy a $8000 system you make about 6% to 12% return on investment.
    So remove any subsidy and tax it then we get 4% to 6%.
    Warning lights have gone off.
    I do not think even the dumbest of people do not think this is not a good idea.
    So when a voter looks at the situation he/she suddenly realises I want this.
    Perhaps the people selling the product have been bit slow to grasp the value of their product?

Comments are closed.

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