Attacks on wind and solar policies turn to state initiatives

Attacks on wind and solar policies turn to state initiatives

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Having obliterated almost all the effective federal climate and renewables policies, the focus is now switching to state-based targets, using the old arguments of higher costs and little abatement.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The assault on climate policies and renewable energy initiatives has taken a new form: having obliterated almost all of the effective policies at federal level, the focus is now switching to state-based targets, using the old arguments of higher costs and little abatement as the basis for the attack.


The new stance is being led by conservative institutions such as the Grattan Institute – with the enthusiastic support of the lobby groups that represent the coal and gas-fired generators, and the federal government, which shows no inclination to move on from Abbott-era policies.

The Grattan Institute over the weekend released another major report analysing events in South Australia in recent months. Parts of it were immediately seized upon by those seeking to place renewables, and wind and solar in particular, in a poor light and promote the interests of the gas industry.

The report is one of many that have highlighted the complexities of the situation in Australia, and the poor policy framework.

But rather than focus on the rules that allow the market to be exploited by fossil fuel generators, the focus is instead put on state-based renewable energy policies. And the mainstream media needed little encouragement to take up the Grattan Institute’s invitation.

“Unilateral action by states or territories is likely to distort the implementations of national policies and increase costs with no environmental benefit,” The Australian newspaper was delighted to quote from the Grattan report on its front page.

Balderdash and poppycock. The ACT, which has led the way on state-based targets with its 100 per cent renewable energy target by 2020, has been remarkably successful in achieving its own emission reductions.

The ACT’s system of reverse auctions kept the renewable energy industry from disappearing altogether during the Abbott years – in the same way that the Victorian government kept the industry going in the mid 2000s when the Howard government pulled the plug on renewables. And the fossil fuel industry is not happy.

South Australia has also achieved a significant reduction in its emissions by targeting renewables. In effect, it merely sought a higher share of the national target, and economic investment in its own state, which wasn’t that hard because Coalition governments in other states were too focused on protecting the interests of coal-fired generators.

Indeed, South Australia’s 50 per cent by 2025 target was not so much a policy as a piece of rhetoric; it was pretty much already achieved at the time of the announcement in 2014, and the only major projects to commence construction in that state since that date been the result of the ACT’s own renewables program.

Similarly, the targets in Victoria, Queensland and (more recently) the Northern Territory, have yet to take shape. Queensland has still not outlined the mechanisms of its 50 per cent by 2030 target, but it did agree to write some power purchase agreements with some solar farms in the recent ARENA large scale solar tender.

That allowed Queensland – like South Australia before it – to seize the lion’s share of a national policy. And like the ACT, which has also written 20-year contracts with large-scale renewable projects, Queensland will likely save money from doing so.

Let’s put all these attacks on state-based policy initiatives into some context. The national renewable energy target is basically the last policy standing in Australia, the only tool we have to reduce emissions and/or increase the uptake of renewables.

But even this policy is much diminished, because the Abbott government spent most of its first year in government trying to get rid of it all together. And it effectively expires in four years.

That explains why the states have acted, just as they did a decade ago when Abbott’s Coalition predecessor and mentor, John Howard, took a similar course of action.

In frustration, the states – as the dominoes toppled and one-term Coalition governments were shoved out the door and replaced by Labor – have adopted higher targets because the national government is sitting on its hands.

It is a story repeated throughout the world, where the actions of sub-national governments – councils, cities and states – is often far superior to national policies.

The pretext for this latest attack on state-based policies is the recent price spikes in South Australia, and the role played by wind and solar – or the lack of it, on certain occasions – in the jump in prices.

The Grattan report goes through this in detail, and we republish a contribution it made to The Conversation here. But as you can see from this summary, there is little mention of the fact that such price spikes used to be common just five years ago, when South Australia relied only on coal and gas.

It also downplays the impact of record high gas prices – they were four times the long-term average for parts of July and twice the long-term average for much of the month. And it virtually ignores the role of the few remaining gas generators in setting the high prices.

Those gas generators have been cleared of any illegal activity, but the fact that they exploited their market dominance to maximise their profits is in no doubt. They were even congratulated for doing so by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, although some analysts have questioned whether this was entirely fair play.


In the end, a unique set of circumstances exploited by the fossil fuel industry is now being used as a battering ram to soften other renewable energy initiatives, and the state-based policies are the prime target.

Even more ironically, coal-fired power station are now being painted as victims, “forced” by the dastardly renewable energies with their near zero marginal cost of generation to pack up their smoke stacks and leave their coal in the ground.

Mostly, we are talking about generators that have been running for decades and never called to account – either morally or financially – for the pollution and the impacts on climate and health.

Here’s the reality. Most of Australia’s coal-fired power stations will reach the end of their natural life within the next two decades. Australia does need to plan ahead, but not by lowering its renewables targets and putting all its eggs into the gas basket – as institutions such as Grattan and others appear to want us to do.

As David Leitch argues in his column here, the Abbott-era policies brought a stop to investment in renewable energy and there is now little extra capacity as 50 year-old power stations in South Australia and Victoria are closed or are about to close.

The answer is not to put a further cap on investment in renewables, but to quicken it, and to accelerate the rule changes that could encourage battery storage and other technologies, and new business models, and replace an archaic system created by and for a fossil fuel system being made redundant by new technologies and environmental concerns.

The Grattan Institute’s Tony Wood is right about one thing – the country needs a coherent policy on energy and climate change. It could start by inserting “environment” into the National Electricity Objective (NEO), upon which its rules are based.

The lack of this focus has been crux used by regulatory and policy makers as an excuse to do nothing or delay initiatives that could hasten the inevitable transition.

The lack of planning, as Leitch says, is a “complete disgrace”, but the answer now is not to aim for the lowest possible target, but to go for the most ambitious target and to accelerate and co-ordinate that energy transition.

The states know that their economic and environmental futures depend on it. As Bruce Mountain writes, they also know that the costs of this transition are not going to be anywhere near as high as the doomsayers claim. They never are.

This situation can’t be solved by reigning in the states, but by putting a rocket under the federal government and the other Coalition states dragging their heels because of their refusal to embrace the science.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. suthnsun 4 years ago

    Where are these rockets we can put under them? I wish I could find one..

    • Kenshō 4 years ago

      That would be finding ways to drive forward in spite of their resistance, propaganda and attacks on renewable energy policy.

  2. Rob G 4 years ago

    When federal governments fail, the hope is state governments fix things. In NSW a double whammy of bad exists, it has a Liberal state government AND the Liberal Federal government both with their notoriously poor attitudes towards renewables. So we need to go down another level of governance to find common sense. Here Sydney’s re-elected Clover Moore is the champion of renewables and all things clean and green. ACT, VIC and SA are all heading towards positive energy futures and surprise, surprise, none of them are Liberal controlled. It’s pretty easy to figure out who NOT to vote for if you believe we should transition to modern energy.

    • Kenshō 4 years ago

      Exactly, by definition a distributed grid can be implemented anywhere and its practical implementation is determined merely by the presence of leaders.

  3. JIm 4 years ago

    If one looks to Canberra for leadership one only finds it at the local level of government. It’s time for national leadership as well. The need for pricing of carbon at the national level won’t go away. Blaming states for a policy mess is mainly a distraction.

    • Kenshō 4 years ago

      Exactly, it’s part of a propaganda war to attempt to get leverage to depower state based renewable energy targets.

  4. Hayden 4 years ago

    So. “Attack on state initiatives”.
    Doesn’t worry us here in N.S.W. Giles. We don’t have any.

  5. Hayden 4 years ago

    NSW. The California of Australia.
    ~ Mike Baird 2015.

    • Chris Fraser 4 years ago

      He’s trying to put lipstick on a pig …

    • lin 4 years ago

      Lol. Who would have thought Baird was a comedian?

  6. Kenshō 4 years ago

    The price spikes in SA have given RE a great deal of bad press and the aftermath appears ongoing. This is extremely damaging and needs to be dealt with.

  7. onesecond 4 years ago

    Cronies rule and exploit Australia and the average voter seems to dumb to notice or to care. My only hope is off-grid systems becoming a no-brainer.

    • Kenshō 4 years ago

      A faster method is hybrid systems creating load defection. Small scale storage is difficult to get a ten year payback.

  8. lin 4 years ago

    “Unilateral action by states or territories is likely to distort the implementations of national policies and increase costs with no environmental benefit,”
    So rather than push the feds to stop being useless, these morons will berate state governments who are doing as much as they can. Weird.

    • Kenshō 4 years ago

      No it’s not idiocy. It’s deliberate. Intentional. Influenced by factors like plutocracy, hegemony and controlling market share.

    • nakedChimp 4 years ago

      Sun Tzu:
      “So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”

      The incumbents are entrenched at federal level.. decades of lobbying efforts and revolving career paths (politics utility) made sure of that.
      If you want fast results you won’t be able to overcome that with inferior means. You have to go where this hasn’t happened so thoroughly.

      • lin 4 years ago

        and the incumbents and feds really hate that 🙂

  9. Kenshō 4 years ago

    “closure of Hazelwood could add another $20 MWh to futures prices in NSW Vic and South Australia”

    Appears urgent to prevent bad press in SA expanding to include NSW and Vic. The battle around renewables uptake is primarily around mainstream perception and there needs to be a positive beneficial perception of renewable energy.

  10. Cooma Doug 4 years ago

    In the end the re design of the wholesale market is the main need here. The elephant in the room is rarely discussed.

    • Kenshō 4 years ago

      How can the design of the wholesale market be the issue if the AEMC is not on side?

      • Cooma Doug 4 years ago

        Are you answering the question in the answer?

        • Kenshō 4 years ago

          No unfortunately. I think options involving the AEMC are off the table until an election or someone can gang up on them somehow, though have no answers to approach macro policy any other way.

  11. Kenshō 4 years ago

    Can the potential problem of Hazelwood closing and intermittency of renewables be solved by people coming off FIT’s getting storage? Perhaps this is the fastest solution that can be actualised.

  12. Chris Peters 4 years ago

    Giles, it is a pity that your voice is not being heard in the national press. Even The Age, not normally known for panic headlines, has been running hot with scare stories about impending leaps in power prices due to Hazlewood closure, as well as cherrypicking the Grattan Institute’s recent report and implying that all of the problems were due to renewable energy. We need a knowledgeable report such as the one you have written today to reach the mainstream. The ignorance of these reporters could prove expensive if politicians are bamboozled by power industry lies and a misinformed public.

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.