Related article: Labor delivers biggest clean energy Budget in history

Senator McAllister drove the National Energy Performance Strategy and the Consumer Energy Resources Taskforce. These provide a foundation for the new assistant minister to enable solar and electrification for more households, including renters, apartments and low income demographics.

Josh Wilson has been federal member for Fremantle since 2016.

“It’s an honour to have been asked by the Prime Minister to take on the responsibility of serving as the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy, working with Minister Chris Bowen,” he said in a statement.

“There is no area of greater challenge and greater opportunity for Australia, and I relish the chance to work with communities around the country, with innovators and entrepreneurs, with businesses and clean energy advocates and civil society to continue the Albanese government’s sharp focus on the path to net zero, with cheaper energy, cleaner air, and a safe climate.

“Our approach will always involve taking action now and supporting households, including with the cost of living, while laying the foundation for lasting positive change in renewable generation, storage, transmission, transport, and efficiency, including through collaborative work with nations in our region.

Related article: Bowen says replacing coal with nuclear would cost $387b

“For her tireless work in this portfolio, I pay homage to my friend, colleague and now Minister, the Hon Senator Jenny McAllister and extend my congratulations on her new appointment.”

The post Josh Wilson named assistant minister for climate and energy appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Some nuclear fans claim the agency has a position on Australia’s energy mix. That is both wrong and a fundamental misinterpretation of the GenCost report.

Two of the most profound challenges we confront are climate change and the interrelated transition of our energy system to reach our legislated net-zero emissions target by 2050.

Tackling these challenges requires both science and trust in it.

CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, brings impartial research and carefully considered evidence, models, and data to inform the community and their elected representatives about the challenges ahead. We avoid opinion and rhetoric—we do not advocate for a policy position, nor do we skew analyses to suit any political party, whether in government, opposition or on the crossbench.

The GenCost report is a live example of how CSIRO brings science to the community and informs public debate without bias.

Related article: Solar set to leave nuclear and everything else in the shade

First commissioned in 2018 and produced annually by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator, GenCost has informed multiple governments and stakeholders across the energy sector. It is technology-neutral, policy-agnostic, and provides a single, fact-based view on the cost of future electricity technologies.

GenCost is one of several techno-economic analysis documents that contribute to the planning of Australia’s energy transition. GenCost’s capital cost projections are, in turn, an input into AEMO’s Integrated System Plan, the road map for the transition of the National Electricity Market.

GenCost is updated annually in a highly consultative process and takes new, verifiable data into account each year, which over the course of the report’s history has led to new and additional analyses.

In fact, industry consultation and public feedback has refined the report and led to the inclusion of an updated methodology for calculating the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE, a metric to compare the cost of electricity generation from different technologies) and, in the latest report, costings for large-scale nuclear for the first time.

Our most recent report found large-scale nuclear is technically feasible but the levelised cost is 1.5 to 2.5 times more than firmed renewables. And it will take around 15 years to build, reflecting the absence of a development pipeline and additional legal, safety, security and community engagement steps required.

Looking at 2030, GenCost found solar photovoltaic and wind with firming had the lowest levelised cost range of any new-build technology at $89 to $128 per megawatt hour. Large-scale nuclear came to $141 to $233 per megawatt hour, while nuclear small modular reactors had the highest cost range of $230 to $382 per megawatt hour.

Some nuclear proponents in the media have taken this to mean that CSIRO has a view on what Australia’s future energy mix ought to be. That is both wrong and a fundamental misinterpretation of our role. Our role is not to have a view, but to use a rigorous, verifiable, transparent scientific process to show what electricity generation costs could potentially be, to help ensure investment or policy decisions are made on a bedrock of data. Nothing more.

GenCost was created because the sector sought a single set of independently derived cost inputs to enable modelling of Australia’s future electricity system. GenCost is based on the best engineering, economics and science, and verified through an industry and energy sector stakeholder consultation process.

GenCost is not a total energy sector analysis (as it has sometimes been portrayed), nor was it ever intended to be. The data used in GenCost is based on the best global information and applied to local conditions, which allows a meaningful comparison of future electricity generation technologies—whether that’s nuclear, renewables, coal or gas—in the Australian context.

Related article: AEMO says renewables “the most efficient path” to net zero

GenCost will inevitably remain part of the debate around the right road for Australia to take to transition our energy system and rigorous conversation should be encouraged as a pillar of our democracy. But distortion, disparagement, and dog-whistling rejection of the scientific process or scientific organisations to justify a particular policy position, rather than discussing the merits of policies themselves, is a race to the bottom and will hurt, not help, this important debate.

As part of the public debate, GenCost will continue to face criticism, and as the chief executive of CSIRO I welcome this because when we attract scrutiny or questions, it often signals we are addressing issues of real significance to Australians.

It means we are striving to integrate science into the critical conversations that really matter for the community, the world, and the future. It means we are advocating for science and building trust in the facts.

And that is more important than ever because if we are going to overcome the profound challenges that confront us, Australians must continue to trust in science.

This op-ed was originally published in the Australian Financial Review on July 9, 2024.

The post CSIRO brings science, not politics, to electricity cost debate appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

For those who have followed the tortuous path of Australian climate policy over recent decades, a recent report by the Australian Energy Market Commission of a “shadow price” of AUD$70 a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent elicits some painful memories.

The announcement is a reminder of what we lost in 2013 when the Abbott government scrapped the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, better known as the “carbon tax” or the “carbon price”. It was the first time globally a carbon price had ever been introduced and subsequently removed.

In 2024, the shadow carbon price described by the commission is not a cost to be paid by carbon emitters. It’s an estimate of the cost to the world of each tonne of carbon emissions. The $70/tonne figure will be included when calculating the benefits and costs of rule changes.

Related article: Australia will have a carbon price for industry—and it may infuse greater climate action across the economy

Poisoned politics

In 2013, it wasn’t the first time Tony Abbott had defeated an attempt to introduce a carbon price. In 2009, after many months of negotiation, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull agreed on an emissions trading scheme.

Abbott rejected the idea and challenged Turnbull for the leadership, ultimately prevailing by a single vote. Although his public position was equivocal at the time, Abbott has since emerged as a fully fledged denier of climate science. Last year, he became a director of the anti-science Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Rudd persisted with emissions trading as agreed with Turnbull and refused to consider any changes proposed by the Greens, who ultimately voted against it. This episode has poisoned relations between the two left-of-centre parties ever since.

The scheme was deferred indefinitely, and Rudd was replaced by Julia Gillard shortly afterwards.

Gillard also sought to abandon the emissions trading scheme, but was forced to change tack after the 2010 election produced a minority government dependent on Greens support.

The result was the carbon pollution reduction scheme. This was an emissions trading scheme, but because it began operating with a fixed price of $23 a tonne, it was functionally equivalent to a carbon tax.

Gillard had ruled out such a tax before the election, and lost a great deal of credibility when she admitted the scheme was, in effect, a tax. This contributed to Labor’s defeat in 2013.
Despite its difficult birth, the carbon price worked effectively in the two years it was operating.

Emissions fell by about 2%, with no perceptible effect on the economy as a whole. Nevertheless, Tony Abbott described the tax as a “wrecking ball” through the economy. He scrapped it soon after winning power.

After the repeal, Australia ended up with a series of ad hoc policy responses, most notably the Abbott government’s safeguard mechanism. Introduced as a form of “direct action”, the safeguard mechanism remains at the centre of climate policy to this day. Labor has moved to strengthen it, not abandon it.

It’s now clear if either the emissions trading or the carbon pricing scheme had been maintained, Australia would be better placed.

Researchers recently found the “continuation of the carbon tax could have enabled a smoother energy transition”.

Europe launched its own emissions trading scheme in 2005 and has persisted despite initial difficulties (at one point the carbon price fell close to zero). The results are clear—across the 31 countries and regions involved, coal’s share of electricity generation has fallen sharply. Last year, just 12% of electricity in these nations came from coal, with further declines on the way.

What’s the point of a shadow price?

Following Labor’s defeat in the 2019 election, neither major party has been willing to look at imposing a price on carbon emissions.

It’s against this backdrop that Australia’s energy market commission has announced its future decisions will use a shadow price on carbon, set initially at $70/tonne.

That’s significantly higher, in real terms, than the $26 price on carbon set in 2012. Moreover, the price is set to increase to $420/tonne by 2050, when the aim is to achieve net zero emissions.

That sounds promising but, for most of us, the announcement will raise more questions than answers.

First, what is the Australian Energy Market Commission? It’s part of the confusing alphabet soup of agencies involved in overseeing our energy supply.

The commission has the job of setting the rules under which markets operate, including national electricity, gas and retail rules, and provides market development advice to governments.

These rules cover everything from the approval of proposals for new transmission lines to the installation of smart meters for customers.

Related article: Australia is playing catch-up with the Future Made in Australia Act. Will it be enough?

Second, what is a shadow price?

A shadow price is not a cost to be paid by emitters, as was the case with the carbon price. Rather, it’s an estimate of how much each tonne of CO₂ equivalent costs the world as a whole.

Will it have any effect in the real world? Yes. It means this cost will be included when the commission calculates the benefits and costs of rule changes.

Consider a change to transmission network rules to make it easier for new wind and solar projects to connect to the grid while reducing demand for coal-fired electricity.

In the absence of a shadow price, the costs of the rule change might be assessed as exceeding the benefits. With a shadow price, a benefit beginning at $70 per tonne would be added to account for reduced emissions from the change. If this adjustment was large enough, the rule change would be assessed as beneficial and would go ahead.

None of this would be necessary if we had an economy-wide carbon price.

But rigid opposition from the Coalition and the political caution (some might say cowardice) of Labor mean we won’t see a real price on carbon any time soon.

In the meantime, at least our market rules will take proper account of the damage done by the millions of tonnes of emissions vented into atmosphere for free.

Disclosure statement: John Quiggin was a Member of the Climate Change Authority, responsible for policy advice on the CPRS and its successors from 2012 to 2017

Republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons

The post Australia now has a $70 ‘shadow price’ on carbon emissions. Here’s why we won’t see a real price any time soon appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

It’s time we started talking about the principal opponents to action on climate change – fossil fuel industries. If history has taught us anything, it is when oil, gas and coal industries oppose policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, those policies fail.

And make no mistake, they do oppose. Revelations this year that mining giant Glencore spent millions of dollars globally to bankroll a pro-coal campaign are just the latest example.

However, my research shows that there are specific strategies policymakers can use to help overcome the resistance from incumbent fossil fuel industries, including exploiting the divisions within and between fossil fuel industries.

Read more: Carbon emissions will reach 37 billion tonnes in 2018, a record high

I have spent the past few years studying the behaviour of these firms and industries in the United States – the home of fossil fuel resistance. After all, the US is now the largest producer of oil and gas, with the largest reserves of coal on the planet, and it is the home of companies, such as ExxonMobil, that have known about climate change for 40 years and have been denying its existence for almost as long.

To get to know the way they work, I spent countless hours in the offices of major coal corporations and their lobbyists. I met with executives from oil and gas corporations in Houston, and their lobbyists in Washington DC.

I also spoke with small renewable startups, and billion-dollar companies running endless battles to preserve tax subsidies for wind and solar, which they claimed were only fair given the subsidies to fossil fuels.

So what are the lessons for policymakers seeking to advance a clean energy transition? Three stand out.

Support clean energy industries

First, governments need to entrench and build existing interests in support of clean energy. Targeted policies, such as subsidies to the solar industry or tax rebates to households for solar power, both boost the industry and build a specific political constituency in support of solar power.

For example, US investment tax credits for solar power helped drive a boom in recent years, growing into an industry measured in the billions of dollars. As industry revenues increased, so has the industry’s power to defend the investment tax credit and oppose fossil fuel companies.

Indeed, the Solar Energy Industries Association in the US is now a vocal advocate for clean energy in Washington, just as the Solar Council is here in Australia. Both groups have helped offset the tide of fossil fuel lobbying that regularly washes against the shores of government.

Split fossil fuel industries

Second, policymakers should seek to exploit divisions within and between fossil fuel industries. When incumbent industries are divided or politically weak, green coalitions are easier to build.

For example, if the aim is to regulate coal, policies are more likely to succeed if they exploit the natural divisions between coal mining companies and the electric utilities that burn it to generate electricity.

In this case, the best bet is to target politically weak industries less able to mount a resistance campaign.

In the US the obvious example is the coal industry. The US coal industry is in structural decline, with production and revenue falling steadily. In fact, between 2012 and 2015, more than 50 firms representing 50% of US coal production filed for bankruptcy protection, including three of the largest: Peabody Energy, Alpha Natural Resources, and Arch Coal, all of whose share prices have plummeted.

Coal’s decline has been manifest in a shrinking lobbying presence, with key coalitions reducing their operations, and with it the industry’s capacity to oppose policies that support clean energy.

Shift interests

Third, policymakers should not only seek to entrench existing commercial interests and exploit divisions, but also to shift commercial interests.

Policies, such as renewable energy targets that compel utilities to invest in renewable energy, over time will shift the commercial interests of these firms towards policies supporting renewable energy.

Read more: When it comes to climate change, Australia’s mining giants are an accessory to the crime

Indeed, repeat signals demonstrating to business the regulatory landscape is changing can create a tipping point, when a critical mass of affected companies stop opposing a specific policy such as emissions trading.

This was the view of many electric utilities during the Obama administration who decided to support climate policies. As the CEO of Duke Energy, Jim Rogers put it at the time, “if you’re not at the table, you’re going to be on the menu”.

Of course none of this will be easy. BHP shareholders last week voted to remain a member of the coal lobby Minerals Council of Australia, showing the fossil fuel industries are far from toothless.

Read more: How to transition from coal: 4 lessons for Australia from around the world

But with the science showing a third of the world’s oil reserves, half the world’s gas reserves and 90% of global coal reserves must be left in the ground to meet the Paris targets, governments urgently need effective action.

Otherwise, no matter what administration is in power, climate action will continue to be delayed, and even derailed by the industries that stand to lose.

Christian Downie, Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Politicians must mine the divide between coal lobbies and energy companies appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Anthony Albanese will seek to marry a strong commitment to a low carbon economy that can fuel a “manufacturing boom”, with firm support for coal, in his first “vision statement”, to be delivered in Perth.

“Simply put, the road to a low-carbon future can be paved with hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs, as well as supporting traditional jobs,” the opposition leader says in his “Jobs and the future of work” address.

Albanese also continues repositioning Labor with pro-business and pro-growth rhetoric; his sentiments on business contrast with Bill Shorten’s criticisms of the “top end of town”.

Read more: Grattan on Friday – Anthony Albanese needs some meat in his first ‘vision statement’ next week

“Like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, I understand that building the future means we must first and foremost be in the business of creating wealth, as well as ensuring it is distributed fairly,” he says.

“Labor is proudly and resolutely pro-growth. We understand that successful businesses and a vibrant economy are essential prerequisites for job growth.” An extract of the speech was provided ahead of its Tuesday delivery.

Labor wants to lead the “clean energy revolution”, Albanese says. But while he talks up the job creation capacity of expanding renewables, it won’t be until much closer to the election that the ALP crafts its revised policy on emissions reduction targets, about which there is sharp internal dispute.

In the wake of the opposition losing votes, especially in Queensland, over its equivocation on coal mining, Albanese is sending a reassuring message to workers in that industry.

Moreover he links coal to clean energy, pointing to the use of coking coal in the production of wind turbines.

“Our traditional industries are also poised to benefit from a low-carbon future. Australia could be exporting 15.5 million tonnes of coking coal to build these turbines. This is the equivalent of three years output from the Moranbah North coking coal mine in Queensland,” he says.

Read more: Governments took the hard road on clean energy – and consumers are feeling the bumps

Albanese says in a decarbonising world “with the right planning and vision, Australia can not only continue to be an energy exporting superpower, we can also enjoy a new manufacturing boom. This means jobs.”

Noting the potential for hydrogen exports he says: “Experts tell us achieving 50% renewable energy at home while building a hydrogen export industry would create 87,000 good, well-paid jobs. Chief Scientist Alan Finkel sees a hydrogen export industry that in ten years could be worth $1.7 billion.”

While a low-carbon future would give the opportunity to revitalise manufacturing and create jobs, the government’s “current policy settings barely acknowledge climate change, let alone seek to exploit the opportunities that, over time, can come with the global shift to renewables.

“In the century that’s before us, the nations that will transform into manufacturing powerhouses are those that can harness the cheapest renewable energy resources.”

Pointing to Australia’s abundant sources for renewable energy and its engineering and scientific expertise, Albanese says: “Australia can be the land of cheap and endless energy – energy that could power generations of metal manufacturing and other energy intensive manufacturing industries.

“Our resources and capability also offer us the scope to be the capital of mining and processing of the key ingredients of the renewables revolution.”

Read more: Oil companies are thinking about a low-carbon future, but aren’t making big investments in it yet

Australia has rich supplies of rare earth elements, iron, titanium, copper, lithium and silver, he says.

“Just as coal and iron ore fuelled the industrial economies of the 20th century, it is these minerals that will fuel the clean energy economies of the 21st.”

In the low carbon world, Albanese points to the particular role for lithium, which is not just mined in Western Australia but is being developed into an upstream industry. “As electric vehicles, energy storage systems and smart devices become more mainstream, the global demand for lithium batteries will explode,” he says.

“The emerging lithium industry is a living example of how real world economic progress happens – business, unions, researchers and government coming together to deliver on an aspiration bigger than just digging stuff out of the ground and letting the value-adding happen offshore.

“Not only is Australia in a position to build the batteries, Brisbane-based company, Tritium, has developed and is already exporting the technology to recharge them. Their charging stations are the fastest in the world, and are fuelling the shift to electric vehicles in Europe.”

On macro economic policy, Albanese once again urges the government to inject some stimulus into the econony.

“Today I call upon the government to introduce an upgraded investment guarantee as part of a measured economic stimulus package to boost our sluggish economy.

“A bring forward of infrastructure investment combined with increased business investment would create jobs in the short term as well as lift productivity.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Low carbon economy can spur Australian “manufacturing boom”: Albanese appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Ahead of Saturday’s federal election the Coalition has latched onto economic modelling claiming Labor’s target of a 45% emissions reduction would cost the economy as much as A$187 billion in 2030.

The modelling released by BAEconomics contrasts strikingly with 22 different reports, many peer-reviewed, which all indicate a far lower economic cost to moving Australia’s energy mix towards renewables.

Labor’s own costings, released last Friday, show a substantially smaller cost to its emissions reduction plan.

But, beyond reports, the example of South Australia is a real-world rebuke to the credibility of BAEconomic’s conclusions. SA has already moved substantially towards Labor’s 2030 target by generating 50% of electricity from renewables and proven its ability to deal with heatwaves that caused mass blackouts in Victoria earlier this year – without breaking the bank.

Read more: Fixing the gap between Labor’s greenhouse gas goals and their policies

False assumptions in the model

An appropriate carbon tax is one that makes renewable energy generation competitive with existing fossil fuel generators. Technology advances have already lowered the cost of renewables to the point they’re becoming cost-competitive even without a carbon tax.

The final bastion of fossil–fuel cost advantage is in baseload generation, but the falling costs of battery storage and potential for pumped hydro will close this gap as well.

In the modelling undertaken by BAEconomics, the economic losses depend entirely on the cost gap assumed between renewable and fossil fuel generators. When the Gillard government introduced a carbon tax, it was set at A$24 per tonne. This is of a similar magnitude to carbon taxes set elsewhere in the world.

But the BAEconomics modelling assumed a carbon tax of up to A$405 per tonne. There appears to be no justification for this gap, made even more extraordinary by the much smaller price assumed for purchases of carbon credits from overseas.

The Coalition has shown a complete lack of discernment in reporting the consequent modelled results.

Read more: Carry-over credits and carbon offsets are hot topics this election – but what do they actually mean?

What does the real world show?

The transition to renewables is a complex process. It will rely on many emerging technologies and require different approaches in different regions. But there are places in Australia that show the real cost and benefits of transitioning to renewables.

In southeastern Australia we see electricity demand peak on a limited number of days each year when temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide soar.

South Australia has heavily invested in renewables. In contrast, Victoria is much more reliant on traditional fossil fuel power stations.

We can look to the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) for comprehensive reports on wholesale electricity prices.

AEMO also prepared a report on load shedding (deliberate rolling blackouts designed to prevent damage to the grid) in Victoria on January 24 and 25 of this year.

Adelaide suffered record heat on January 24, as suburban temperatures neared 48℃. On this day of extreme demand, the state’s back-up generators were fired up for the first time. Wind and solar plants generated almost 50% of South Australia’s electricity on that day.

The state’s generators coped much better than Victoria’s. A combination of maintenance outages, unexpected disruption and poor heat performance in Victoria’s ageing coal-fired power plants caused mass blackouts.

South Australia has already moved much of the way towards the 2030 carbon reduction target. Subsidies over the past decade or so have contributed to transition, but these are shrinking as the costs of renewables fall.

It has not all been plain sailing. A severe blackout occurred in September 2016 as cyclonic winds battered the state, taking wind generators offline and mangling power pylons across the state. In response, the SA government commissioned a Tesla battery and back-up generators to improve the network’s capacity to deal with adverse conditions. On January 24 this year the state’s network passed a severe test.

Read more: Australia’s major parties’ climate policies side-by-side

The real-life comparison between a state advanced in energy transition and a state that is less advanced shows Labor’s emissions target will result in economic losses much smaller than those modelled by BAEconomics.

Glyn Wittwer, Professorial Fellow at the Centre of Policy Studies and IMPACT Project, Victoria University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post South Australia’s experience contradicts Coalition emissions scare campaign appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

A long-time Liberal Party member, Mr Yates said he would revoke his membership to run against Frydenberg because it was time to challenge climate change denialists within the government.

“It’s unfortunate that it’s come to this,” Mr Yates said.

“The Liberal Party really continues to be in denial about climate change and dealing with the interests of the Australian people.

“I’d been hoping for many years that they would wake up to themselves and deal with this issue, but they haven’t.

“They continue to ignore this core nonsense and I couldn’t just stand by any longer.”

Mr Yates was appointed to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation by the ALP in 2012, where he remained until 2017.

He has been a sharp critic over the years of the Liberal Party and its climate policy, including walking out of a $10,000-a-table fundraiser after a lump of coal was presented to then treasurer Scott Morrison in Parliament, according to The Sydney Morning Herald. Mr Yates is reported to have said on the matter, “it’s not a joke”.

Mr Frydenberg holds Kooyong – which has only been held by conservative MPs since its creation in 1901 – with a margin of 12.8 per cent.

Related article: Frydenberg rejects APA takeover in “national interest”

The post Kooyong climate fight for Frydenberg next election appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

The new PM said his new cabinet would “restore stability to the government” after the commotion in the past week, stemming from debate around national energy policy, that saw Malcolm Turnbull resign.

“This new Liberal-National team is a next-generation team,” Mr Morrison said.

“It is a team that are brought together to assure we have the stability necessary, but in addition to that, begin the work of healing that is needed after these most recent events.”

Josh Frydenberg will take on the role of Treasurer, leaving his former role as Minister for Energy and Environment split.

West Australian MP Melissa Price will take on environment, leaving Angus Taylor with the energy portfolio.

“It’s a great honour to be asked to join Scott Morrison’s Cabinet as Minister for Energy or as he described it ‘the Minister for reducing electricity prices’,” Mr Morrison said on twitter.

“A tough job, but an extremely important one that has a big impact on so many Australian households and businesses.”

Energy Networks Australia CEO Andrew Dillon said the energy portfolio is a challenging one and he looked forward to working with Mr Taylor on helping move energy policy forward.

“Never has there been a time when there’s been such a focus on the sector, with Australia’s complex energy system transforming rapidly,” Mr Dillon said.

“Enduring policies that can deliver affordable and reliable energy as we transition to a low emissions future continue to be the priority for energy networks.”

The Australian Energy Council’s chief executive Sarah McNamara said a national energy policy must remain a top priority for the government.

“It is vital the industry has the necessary framework to deliver affordable and reliable power, while we continue to manage an energy market in transition,” she said.

“The energy industry looks forward to working with Minister Taylor in his new role and assisting him with these challenges.”

Ms McNamara also thanked Mr Frydenberg for his management of the energy portfolio and congratulated him on his new role as Treasurer.

“Minister Frydenberg navigated a challenging policy debate and negotiations with the energy sector with great skill,” she said.

“We greatly appreciated his engagement and leadership. On behalf of the industry, I congratulate him and wish him the best in his new role.”

Mr Taylor’s grandfather, William Hudson, headed construction of the Snowy Mountains Scheme from 1949 to 1967 and, as a financial analyst, Mr Taylor wrote a report on reducing the cost of electricity that suggested the government drop the RET and save up to $3.2 billion by 2020.

He is known for his anti-renewables views and has campaigned against wind farms in the past.

The post New federal energy minister appointed appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg on Monday left open the possibility of such a plan, in comments on the terms of reference he released for next year’s review of climate policy, to be done by his department.

But, after a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Frydenberg went on radio to rule it out.

Conservative senator Cory Bernardi had described re-opening the debate about any form of carbon pricing as “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard”, and there had been angry rumblings among Coalition conservatives more widely.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott on Tuesday night said in a statement: “I’m sure the last thing ministers want to do is to reopen questions that were settled for our side back in 2009. We’re against a carbon tax. We’re against an ETS. We’re against anything that’s a carbon tax or an ETS by stealth. We are the party of lower power prices and should let Labor be the party that artificially increases prices under Green pressure.”

Any sort of carbon pricing is highly sensitive for Malcolm Turnbull. He lost his leadership in large part over this issue in 2009. He had to pledge not to substantially vary the Abbott policy on climate in canvassing votes for the leadership last year and then in the Coalition agreement with the Nationals when he became prime minister.

The hard line against an emissions intensity scheme came despite industry welcoming a look at it.

Frydenberg said on Tuesday night there would not be an emissions intensity scheme under a Turnbull government.

“What I’m focused on is how to keep down electricity prices, not to put increased pressure on electricity generators.”

The way such a scheme would work for the electricity industry is that an emissions baseline would be set with producers with emissions above it having to buy credits from those below it.

On Monday Frydenberg was asked whether, given the review would look at reducing emissions on a sector-by-sector basis, that could include for the electricity sector an emissions intensity scheme.

While stressing the government rejected an economy-wide approach, he said: “The electricity sector is the one that produces the most emissions, around a third of Australia’s emissions come from that sector. We know there’s been a large number of bodies that have recommended an emissions intensity scheme, which is effectively a baseline and credit scheme. We’ll look at that.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

The post Turnbull government rules out an emissions intensity scheme appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.