Page 1999 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This repayment mechanism would operate similarly to Dr Andrew Blakers’s solarisation proposal. Neither scheme involves a government handout, as the Chief Minister keeps asserting. Both involve an up-front investment in critical climate change initiatives which would be paid back at a next to zero risk of default and then become available to be rolled over to fund future initiatives. Fully implemented nationally, EASI would reduce greenhouse emissions by close to 30 million tonnes each year, achieving almost 10 per cent of the emissions reductions required by the Greens’ target to reduce emissions to 30 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. The total cumulative cost of the program nationwide is projected at $22 billion over 10 years, which would be recouped by the government in a repayment scheme through energy bills. This would permanently keep household energy bills down, saving increasing amounts of money as energy prices rise on the back of a carbon price.
I have not extrapolated these figures to the scale of the ACT, but I am quite sure that the Chief Minister’s Department has the ability to do this. Perhaps ActewAGL could consider a requirement that either a PV or solar hot water system, or other renewable energy generator, be installed along with air-conditioning systems as an offset for the air conditioners’ greenhouse gas emissions. From studies that I have seen I believe it would be relatively easy to achieve a 50 per cent reduction in energy usage for most households.
I am glad to see that in Mr Gentleman’s model a contract period is 20 years and the tariff will be payable on the gross output of the solar system, not net. I understand that the minister will probably propose a decrease of two per cent each year for new installation. This creates an incentive for people to invest in PV earlier rather than later. This is a sensible mechanism and I urge the minister to adopt it and publicise it widely.
I am glad that there is provision for variable inputs so large-scale plants can also be included. We want to encourage corporate energy consumers to install renewable sources. Commercial and industrial premises have large, often flat, roof spaces—a great opportunity to ensure faster and viable utility of the renewable energy and general public and private participation.
It would be more cost effective if the federal or ACT governments subsidised large-scale commercial sized plants to be set up, which are much more efficient, and economies of scale would apply. To maximise renewable energy use we need to encourage the installation of photovoltaic panels on all roofs, including data centres. Additional incentives could be created to reward community organisations who wish to make use of the scheme, and businesses should be encouraged to participate by non-monetary incentives.
The premium rate should consider long-term factors including competitive pricing and efficiencies. It should ensure that incentives are maintained to encourage new entrants into the renewable energy production market. Regular review is necessary as the renewable energy sector will probably start changing dramatically over the next few years as the climate crisis takes hold, as new technologies come online and as more people install PV and other technologies.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .