Page 2609 - Week 07 - Thursday, 2 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Mountain’s comments also highlight another concern: the design of the NEG lacks transparency. States, territories, stakeholders and consumers are being asked to sign up to the NEG without the detailed modelling undertaken on price and other impacts.
Experts have raised serious concerns about the divergent conclusions reached by the modelling undertaken for the Energy Security Board and work from the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO. So serious are these concerns that 23 energy researchers from 11 institutions on Tuesday, 31 July asked for the full release of the NEG modelling. These researchers have written to the six state and territory energy ministers whose jurisdictions cover the NEM, requesting that the modelling be released. They wrote in part:
The proposed National Energy Guarantee is the most significant change to the National Electricity Market since the implementation of the National Electricity Laws in 1996 …
The Energy Security Board’s Final Decision Paper refers to an ACIL Allen study which purports to validate the NEG design. The paper provides insufficient detail on the assumptions, methodology and results of the study and indeed it is difficult to reconcile the claims with our own understanding of energy market dynamics and the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan.
We call on the Ministers to request the ESB to release the ACIL Allen modelling in full, including all assumptions that have a bearing on the modelling of price effects, and to provide access to the modelling team, so that we may have the opportunity to peer review the work.
If the NEG is a good solution, as the Turnbull government contends, it should release all the details and all the modelling for public scrutiny. I suspect that one of the reasons that the full modelling and detailed assumptions are not being released publicly is that it will confirm that the NEG is nothing more than a coal guarantee.
The concerns of transparency are also broader than just the lack of detailed modelling. States and territories are being rushed to make a decision on a policy that has been developed in a relatively short time, a policy that only seeks to lock in the current structures of our electricity system. This begs the questions: if the system is so broken that the immediate solution is required then why the rush to lock in the very structure that seems to be broken? And if the NEG only keeps things as they are now, why can’t we take more time to carefully consider and analyse policy? In contrast to the hurried NEG, the current electricity market, the NEM, took 10 years to design and develop.
There is no doubt that a solution is needed to ensure that the transition to a clean energy future occurs at the least cost. However, this needs to be well considered and thought out. The failure to be transparent is another clear indication that the NEG in its current form is far from good. It is also far from good because the design of the NEG may see others free-riding on the efforts that territorians are making, as the Chief Minister pointed out.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video