1. What should the new VEET target be?
6.2 million tonnes CO2-e per year for five
years
Other (please specify a target and length):
[Required if 'Other' selected] *
1a. Please outline why you prefer the
target you identified, or why you selected
"No response":
A larger target will maximise the energy
savings and CO2-e abated.
2. Comments are invited on the modelling
approach used to determine the costs and
benefits of the VEET scheme. Is there any
additional data or information that should
be considered?
Power Factor needs to be part of the
calculations even though the great majority
of small businesses (a major part of the
scheme recipients) are not charged on this
basis (kVA, kVAr, Peak Demand) but
simply kWHr. Here are 2 examples that
demonstrate this: 1. Many older (7 years
plus) fluorescent fittings have a low Power
Factor (0.45 - 0.65) due to faulty and/or
degraded compensation capacitors. This is
not reflected in the customer's cost of
electricity as they are only charged kWHr
but this imposes a burden on the generator
and distribution network. The VEEC
calculation does not take account of this
'extra' increase in abatement after upgrading
due to the significantly better Power Factor
(0.9) of LED devices accredited under the
VEET scheme. 2. We have noted that when
replacing fluorescent tubes with LED tubes
where the compensating capacitor is not
removed it can significantly degrade the
Power Factor to 0.3 - 0.4. This has the
effect that not only is there NO abatement
but actual generation capacity has to
increase to meet the extra burden together
with the distribution network. In our
experience fluorescent fittings make up 80 85% of work under Activity 34 Commercial Lighting.
3. Which greenhouse gas coefficient
should be used to quantify the reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by
the VEET scheme?
No response
3a. Please outline why you believe this
option is preferred, or why you selected
"No response":
I do not have expertise in this area.
4. The Department has valued greenhouse
gas emissions reductions attributed to the
VEET scheme by adopting a carbon
valuation series that was produced by the
Federal Climate Change Authority as part
of its 2014 Targets and Progress
Review.Please outline whether you think
this approach is appropriate for valuing
greenhouse gas emissions reductions over
the period 2016 to 2050?
As per 3a.
5. Is there a case to exclude any business
sector(s) from participation in the VEET
scheme?
No
5a. Please outline why this is your
preferred option, and comment on how
this should be implemented:
5b. Please outline why this is your
preferred option:
All businesses should be included to
maximise the energy savings and CO2=e
abatement.
6. Should the VEET scheme be amended
to better ensure support for low income
households?
No response
6a. Please outline how the VEET scheme
could better support low income
households, and comment on why this
option should be preferred:
6b. Please outline why this is your
preferred option:
7. In addition to expanding the range of
energy efficiency activities available in
VEET, should any other action be taken
to target participation by certain groups?
7a. Please outline the actions you believe
should be taken:
7b. Please outline why no other action
should be taken, or why you selected "No
response":
8. Please suggest up to five activities that
should be prioritised for revision or
introduction to the VEET scheme. Please
outline why you believe these activities
No response
should be prioritised.
9. Please suggest up to three changes
which should be made to improve the
VEET scheme. Please outline why you
believe these changes should be a priority.