1. What should the new VEET target be? Other
Other (please specify a target and length): [Required if 'Other' selected] *
7+ million tonnes CO2-e per year for five years
1a. Please outline why you prefer the target you identified, or why you selected
"No response":
I understand that modelling and subsequent analysis undertaken for the review showed that maximum net benefits would be delivered with a target of at least 6.9 million tonnes
CO2-e per year for five years.
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?
I feel that your modelling and subsequent analysis have probably delivered results that are a little on the conservative side because as far as I am aware they did not take into account the following factors: *Direct savings to the government's energy concessions budget. *Public health benefits of ameliorating the health risks from living in low quality housing, such as exposure to extremes of weather - heatwaves for example.
*Employment growth.
An average coefficient (as published in the
National Greenhouse Accounts)
3. Which greenhouse gas coefficient should be used to quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by the VEET scheme?
3a. Please outline why you believe this option is preferred, or why you selected
"No response":
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?
This seems to me the coefficient that would produce a figure which best reflected the true reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the VEET scheme.
I feel that the modelling would give a more accurate calculation of the total economic cost of greenhouse gas emissions if it were to include all the likely social costs of the expected increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as bushfires, floods and heatwaves. These would include, for example, more deaths and hospital admissions, the spread of tropical diseases further south, the increased incidence of property damage - which would in turn lead to insurance premiums becoming increasingly unaffordable for many, and an overall decrease in agricultural yields.
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:
Because the writing has been on the wall for decades now so all business sectors have had ample time to adapt by improving their energy efficiency and / or innovating in other ways.
Alternatively, they have also had more than enough time to change direction altogether. I also do not feel that there are valid grounds for any businesses to receive government benefits retrospectively for investing in the abovementioned measures. This is because such actions would presumably have been based on sound economic rationale and should therefore be classed as 'business as usual' actions, which
I understand are excluded under VEET.
6. Should the VEET scheme be amended to better ensure support for low income households?
Yes
6a. Please outline how the VEET scheme could better support low income households, and comment on why this option should be preferred:
Because low income home owners will otherwise be caught between a rock and a hard place. As energy prices continue to rise they will struggle progressively more and more to pay for what they use and this will make it impossible for them to afford the up front costs of measures that would significantly reduce the amount of energy they would need in the future, and therefore their long term costs. I refer to measures such as draught sealing, insulation, and solar panels, for example. Low income renters would be at the mercy of their landlords as to whether or not any of these energy-saving measures were undertaken, and without government incentives of some kind the latter would have little motivation to do so as they would not experience any immediate financial gain from their tenants' lower energy costs. I therefore support the reinstatement of previous successful schemes which have in the past provided targeted assistance to low income earners for the implementation of energy efficient measures. I refer here to the Victorian government's Home Energy Saver Scheme and Low Income Energy Efficiency Program, for example. In addition, to address the lack of

incentive for landlords to take action here, I support the phasing in over 2 or 3 years of minimum energy efficiency standards for rental properties, combined with financial assistance for low income landlords like myself to comply with these. (I own 1 residential investment property which provides about half of my total income and would struggle to afford for this property those energy efficient measures with a high upfront cost, such as solar panels. I purchased my own solar panels a few years ago when I was still working, government rebates were higher, and
I didn't yet own my investment property).
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:
Yes
In deciding what constitutes a 'low income', consideration should be given to looking at household income PER CAPITA. This is because larger households will inevitable use more energy for washing both clothes and people. If such a household falls just outside the eligibility criteria for a concession card they may well be at constant risk of disconnection due to a genuine inability to pay their energy bills as well as put food on the table.
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 should be prioritised.
1. CEILING INSULATION, because it is a relatively cheap and very effective way to increase the thermal efficiency of any building. But please make sure that this time the workers are well trained, the materials used are of an acceptable quality for the task, and the expenditure is adequately audited, to avoid the tragic debacle of Kevin Rudd's infamous Federal Home Insulation Program!
2. SOLAR PANEL INSTALLATION AND

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.
CONNECTION TO THE GRID, because this leads to an immediate and significant decrease in the amount of electricity drawn from the grid. This not only provides an almost instant and very real ongoing financial benefit to the household, but of course reduces society's greenhouse gas emissions overall. In my own case, a 2kwh system reduced my yearly electricity bills from about $1200 to $200.
I feel the best overall long term reduction in greenhouse gasses would be achieved by taking a 'whole of house' approach to improving domestic energy efficiency. This should begin with a comprehensive audit of each dwelling in order to determine the most suitable mix of upgrades required to provide the maximum possible decrease in each household's greenhouse gas emissions.