Dear Renewable Energy Target review panel,
I am writing in response to your open call for submission for the review of the renewable energy
target.
I, like 24,000 other Australians, am directly employed by the renewable energy industry, so I have a
lot to say. I will keep my submission short, in answering only two questions that the RET Review is
asking:
1. Do small scale renewable energy systems still require support through the SRES? If
so, for what period will support be required for?
Yes of course they do. I work for a small firm that deals directly with the RET and other environmental
schemes, and through this I work with over 400 solar and energy efficiency companies.
We are talking about mum and dad solar installers, small businesses that employ 10 -20 people, right
up to international companies and organisations that employ hundreds of people. All these SME’s are
supported by the RET and other EE schemes, and most would face obliteration if it were not for the
incentives on offer.
The SRES compliance requirements have increases the reliability, accountability and safety of solar
installations, requiring all installers to hold their own CEC accreditations. The CER conduct audits and
pursue those who fail to comply with requirements, offering consumers surety that their systems are
installed correctly and will continue to produce energy for over 20 years.
Removing the RET will act to decrease the number of solar installations being installed compliantly
(as there will no longer be a regulator to enforce compliance), and will also decrease the number of
solar installations taking place, making it harder for hundreds of SME’s who are working in the solar
industry.
Support for these SMEs should be available under the RET as long as massive subsidies and
Government funding is handed out to traditional fossil fuel generators. If you want to cut costs and
save Tax Payers money, then consider the $10 billion in fossil fuel subsides that Abbot has committed
to. That would be your first place to start.
2. The RET and other Government policies
As for other schemes mentioned in the Call for Submissions paper, the RET, voluntary ‘Green Power’
and other energy efficiency schemes (VEET and ESS) complement each other well. Energy
consumers should always act to reduce their energy consumption before considering installing a
generation unit on their homes or businesses. Incentives provided under the RET and energy
efficiency schemes assist homes and businesses who want to be more energy efficient to become so,
and if they are unable to afford the upfront costs associated with installing new energy efficient
systems, then they can elect for their electricity retailer to purchase RECs through the Green Power
voluntary system. Each one of these schemes is beneficial on their own, but together they provide for
low cost emissions abatement that moves Australia to a cleaner energy future.
Feed-in tariffs are largely removed and consumers who are still receiving their high feed-in tariff risk
losing this when they make any changes to their electricity plan (change retailers, switch to new rates,
increase their PV system capacity). Therefore feed-in tariffs will not contribute any more to increased
solar uptake. If feed-in tariffs were to be re-instated, there would be less need for the RET.
And finally, the Governments Direct Action Plan involving the Emissions Reduction Fund is not yet
detailed enough to know whether it will actually achieve the required emissions reduction to meet
Australia’s obligation, but already there are reports that it will not. And the suggestion to scale back a
market mechanism that works on user pays and free market principles in place of a Government
funded competitive grant scheme, in this so called ‘budget crisis’ is absurd.
Yes electricity prices may increase. This has as much to do with the expensive maintenance on the
30 year old poles and wires as much as it is on the RET and other environmental schemes. The more
that electricity prices increase, the more everyday people will act to reduce energy consumption in
their everyday lives. The more our manufacturing industries will innovate new ways of manufacturing
that lowers energy consumption. This will only be good for Australia, getting us closer to meeting our
obligations to cut emissions by 5% by 2020.
Final words:
If this Government is committed to Action on Climate Change, as it so claims, then we need to focus
on the benefits of these schemes, not just the costs.
Yes we need to review these schemes regularly, to ensure they are achieving their goals and doing
so efficiently. We need to tweak the RET, to make it more effective, and allow it to continue to reduce
our carbon emissions while encouraging growth in a robust renewable energy industry. This will
increase Australia’s resilience to global energy markets, provide ongoing economic growth and
employment opportunities for more Australians. We cannot rely on China’s growing economy for our
exports forever. We need to think past traditional fossil fuels for our energy needs.
If there has been a drop in demand for electricity in part because of these schemes then it is clear
they are achieving their goals. Reduce the targets in line with falling electricity demand, but do not
remove the scheme and threaten the 24,000 jobs that depend directly on the RET.
Solar, Wind, Hydro and energy efficiency are the way of the future.
And this is my future.
Thank you for your time in considering my submission and giving me the opportunity to voice my
opinion.
Kind Regards,
Danie Lomas