Wednesday 18 October 2017

Malcolm Turnbull faces uphill battle convincing states to support National Energy Guarantee

Updated about 5 hours ago


Victoria, Queensland and South Australia look set to make the Prime Minister work hard if he wants them to support his new energy plan.

Key points:

  • The National Energy Guarantee would require electricity retailers to have a minimum amount of power constantly available
  • The Energy Security Board says this could deliver an average saving of between $110 and $115 a year for a decade from 2020
  • Victoria's Energy Minister says she's seen no evidence to back up the figure

At the heart of Malcolm Turnbull's pitch is a prediction that by 2020 it could cut household power bills by $100 a year.
But Victoria's Energy Minister Lily D'Ambrosio said when Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg spoke to his state counterparts last night he had no evidence to back up the figure.
"Minister Frydenberg confirmed last night that there's no analysis to support this, what they want us to believe is that this will give us more supply, greater reliability and lower prices," she said.
The Government's plan would force electricity companies to have a certain amount of baseload power ready to be switched on at a moment's notice to prevent blackouts caused by intermittent supplies of renewable energy.
It also scraps the idea of a Clean Energy Target, instead using the National Energy Guarantee to put the onus on retailers to buy enough clean power to meet Australia's international climate change commitments.

Queensland threatens to go it alone

South Australia Premier Jay Weatherill has slammed it as a "coal energy target" and Queensland Energy Minister Mark Bailey is threatening his state could go it alone.
"Queensland's got the most robust power grid in the country; we're the powerhouse of the nation," Mr Bailey said.
"We've got the highest level of energy security, we've got the great capacity to integrate renewables into a very powerful and strong grid.
"We are saying to Canberra we are committed to our state-based 50 per cent renewable energy because it works."

Ms D'Ambrosio was also concerned the Coalition's policy was not green enough.
"The large question that will be unanswered in all of this is how the Federal Government will meet its own emissions targets based on the Paris commitments. It's a very timid target as it is," she said.
At a federal level, Labor is doing its best to trash talk the plan while not actually ruling it out.
Shadow Environment Minister Tony Burke said late yesterday Labor wanted more information.
"We're not rejecting it out of hand but there's a whole lot of detail on this that we just don't know," he said.

Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood, an analyst respected by both sides of politics, was optimistic the plan would end Australia's long-running climate policy war.
"I think this is the best opportunity I've seen for the last 10 years to fully integrate energy and climate change and definitely from what we have so far, gives us the best opportunity of putting downward pressure on prices," he said.

There are early signs the energy industry is on board, with Origin boss Frank Calabria describing the Government's plan as "a solution that has potential".
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson was also hopeful but said the plan would need Labor's support to work.
"I hope very much that political grandstanding and ideology will not be allowed to get in the way of finding a solution," he said.
"Right now if there's one thing our business members tell us, [it] is power bills are too high, it's really hurting and if we don't do something about it soon we face the real prospect of business closures and job losses."
Mr Pearson also said any state connected to the national grid that decided to go its own way would be making a dangerous mistake.

"The Australian market in the eastern seaboard is a national energy market and Australian businesses have to compete increasingly internationally. We should be a country where energy is not the subject of such intense political debate."

No comments:

Post a Comment