Page 1588 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
on reducing demand rather than calculating sustainable supply and then proceeding to distribute it equitably. Instead, water efficient protocols and allocations are needed.
Where are the ACT government subsidies for solar panelling and for feeding power back into the grid? I called for this measure in last year’s budget reply and Mr Gentleman is preparing a draft of legislation to implement it. It makes sense. It saves money, and it helps build the economies of scale that are needed for solar to compete with coal and nuclear.
The most outstanding feature of this budget is what is missing from it. Schemes like the solarisation proposal have been around for a few years, yet no government has taken them up. This is disgraceful and it will be difficult to look future generations in the eye. Perhaps it is contained in the still unreleased energy strategy.
Investment in solarisation would be a low risk and a secure investment. It would also be one of the most politically acceptable ways for governments to reduce greenhouse emissions. It is open to the government to take the lead on this issue. I have suggested before, and I will say it again, that the government should invest our superannuation investment funds in solarisation initiatives.
Actew would be the ideal vehicle to implement solarisation. I will explain what this entails, and in doing so I will borrow heavily from Dr Blakers’—it is Professor Blakers now, I think—submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage. The turnover of Australia’s building stock is low, so even if all new buildings have excellent energy ratings—which they do in the ACT—there is only a slow reduction in average greenhouse intensity. Mass retrofitting of buildings is the only way in which rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved in the building sector; that is, space heating, water heating and efficient appliances.
Mass retrofitting of roof, wall and floor insulation, draught proofing and solar water heaters to existing buildings will yield large greenhouse gas reductions—solarisation. In a typical brick veneer house the cost of thorough solarisation is about $8,000. The reduction in energy bills pays for solarisation well within the lifetime of the solar water heater and insulation. The barriers to mass solarisation are the need for up-front capital and the lack of information for building owners.
There is no incentive for a landlord to invest in solarisation because they do not pay the energy bills. There is no incentive for a tenant to invest in solarisation because they do not own the house. The key to an effective funding model is that the debt belongs to the house and not the home owner.
Actew—and the government—would recover its investment at normal commercial rates of return over eight to 12 years through quarterly bills for the house owner. This is equivalent to the way in which electricity companies recover their investment in a new power station. House owners and tenants would enjoy reduced overall energy costs—comprising gas, electricity and the solarisation quarterly repayments—and improved thermal comfort and noise insulation. A much better greenhouse outcome per dollar would be obtained than from charging a premium for “green electricity”.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .