Malcolm Turnbull likes to talk about wicked problems. Right now, the prime minister is waist-deep in them.
Next week, the high court will hear a challenge to the same-sex marriage postal plebiscite, and determine whether that proposal lives or dies. If it dies, and constitutional law experts such as George Williams suspect it will, marriage equality will fly back in the direction of the parliament like a small, dangerous torpedo.
The dual citizenship imbroglio, meanwhile, thunders on, cluttering up the landscape and potentially imperilling the government’s lower house majority.
In the midst of all this uncertainty, the government is quietly piecing together the elements of its energy policy.
On Friday, the government will receive one critical input. The Australian Energy Market Operator has been asked to take a close look at Australia’s requirements for baseload power at a time when ageing coal-fired generators are starting to leave the system.
The government needs this technical information because it will
influence a range of decisions it will attempt to make in the next
little while.
I want to do readers a favour now and strip out all the rancid internals, ignore, for a moment, the fact that Tony Abbott (amplified by his media boosters and backers) intends to pursue Malcolm Turnbull doggedly with his “coal is good for humanity” campaign as the prime minister attempts to settle the government’s response to the Finkel review.
The government is looking at a national electricity grid where renewables are coming on rapidly, gas power is very expensive and ageing coal assets are heading for retirement.
As a direct consequence of the most catastrophic public policy failure that has been visited on the Australian public – the toxic climate policy wars of the past decade (thanks, Tony) – investors have lacked the policy certainty they require to make decisions.
The government has to end the uncertainty if we want to keep the lights on, keep industry moving and meet our obligations under the Paris agreement.
So, very shortly, it needs to decide whether or not to adopt the clean energy target recommended by the chief scientist Alan Finkel.
If the target is still happening, and the word is it’s still alive despite those rancid internals I’m trying not to linger on, then the government needs to decide where to set the threshold for determining who gets certificates.
Which brings us neatly to coal.
While the querulous contemporary right in Australia shows every sign of being entirely post materialist – fixated with the fate of James Cook statues, the perils of feminism and pesky gays wanting to make marriage genderless and put boys in dresses – one quasi economic fight lingers.
Coal persists, studded liberally through the talking points on Sky News after dark, and on 2GB.
Coal needs to be accommodated. I just want to mention that before returning to plotting the various points of the energy policy compass.
I don’t know what the AEMO report will tell the government about the baseload power requirements during this period of transition, but I think it’s reasonably safe to assume the market operator will say we don’t have enough dispatchable power in the system.
If so, the government’s task is to ensure there is enough baseload power in the system while we transition to a lower emissions future, and to a future where power generation in Australia is increasingly decentralised.
Logic takes us to the nub question: do we need a new coal or gas plant, and if we do, who builds it, the government or the private sector?
Gas, I’ve already mentioned, is expensive. That’s not the government’s easy fix.
So if you think the way the government thinks, the next logical landing point is coal. The government then has to consider the economics of new “clean” coal builds.
They are an expensive proposition, with distinct risks. There is carbon risk and there is political risk – added to the fact that it would take years to build a new plant, so you don’t really have a quick solution to what is largely a transitional problem.
So then, back at wicked problems HQ, the next landing point is: can we prolong the life of existing coal plants? Can you make them hang around in the system a bit longer while you push ahead with Snowy Hydro, and with bolting in storage to renewable power generation to deal with intermittency problems?
As the government moves into the final decision-making stage of energy policy, there is persistent talk around the traps about extending the operating life of the Liddell coal-fired power plant in New South Wales, set to close in five years’ time.
While rightwing culture warriors are fond of banging on about the virtues of cheap coal-fired power, the reality is this: the only form of cheap coal-fired power is the power generated by existing assets, such as Liddell.
When the government met privately with Australia’s energy companies (including AGL, which owns Liddell) in early August, the future of the ageing assets came up, and the operators telegraphed a distinct lack of interest in extending the life of their coal plants.
Liddell is due to close in 2022.
Anyone who turns on a television would already know that AGL in a business sense is already in a whole other place. It has a feelgood marketing campaign predicated on the company getting out of coal from 2022.
So if the government wants to push out Liddell’s operating life to solve one transitional problem, and AGL isn’t interested, then we get into territory like how might the government intervene in the market, and at what cost, both in dollars and emissions.
All this is swirling around as our parliamentarians prepare to make their journey back to Canberra next week. The government knows the energy policy resolution cannot be squibbed.
Having now made itself politically responsible for power prices by picking a cheap fight over Jay Weatherill’s wind farms, which triggered a cascading and at times deeply contradictory sequence ending up in the prime minister getting bogged down in the billing practices and customer communications of electricity retailers – the government now needs to show voters it’s fixing a substantive problem.
Now that I’ve laid out the policy dilemma, we can track back, briefly, into politics.
We are all painfully aware the Coalition collectively has incredible trouble being sensible when it comes to climate change and energy policy, and we know the Finkel fight is a proxy war to indulge other animus.
We know that a prime minister in all sorts of trouble is responding to his current difficulties by trying to put one foot in front of the other.
What we don’t yet know is whether a government battling difficulties on multiple fronts can keep its nerve and produce sensible policy.
Recent weeks have not given any sensible person cause for hope – but this is a test the Turnbull government cannot afford to fail.
Next week, the high court will hear a challenge to the same-sex marriage postal plebiscite, and determine whether that proposal lives or dies. If it dies, and constitutional law experts such as George Williams suspect it will, marriage equality will fly back in the direction of the parliament like a small, dangerous torpedo.
The dual citizenship imbroglio, meanwhile, thunders on, cluttering up the landscape and potentially imperilling the government’s lower house majority.
In the midst of all this uncertainty, the government is quietly piecing together the elements of its energy policy.
On Friday, the government will receive one critical input. The Australian Energy Market Operator has been asked to take a close look at Australia’s requirements for baseload power at a time when ageing coal-fired generators are starting to leave the system.
I want to do readers a favour now and strip out all the rancid internals, ignore, for a moment, the fact that Tony Abbott (amplified by his media boosters and backers) intends to pursue Malcolm Turnbull doggedly with his “coal is good for humanity” campaign as the prime minister attempts to settle the government’s response to the Finkel review.
The government is looking at a national electricity grid where renewables are coming on rapidly, gas power is very expensive and ageing coal assets are heading for retirement.
As a direct consequence of the most catastrophic public policy failure that has been visited on the Australian public – the toxic climate policy wars of the past decade (thanks, Tony) – investors have lacked the policy certainty they require to make decisions.
The government has to end the uncertainty if we want to keep the lights on, keep industry moving and meet our obligations under the Paris agreement.
So, very shortly, it needs to decide whether or not to adopt the clean energy target recommended by the chief scientist Alan Finkel.
If the target is still happening, and the word is it’s still alive despite those rancid internals I’m trying not to linger on, then the government needs to decide where to set the threshold for determining who gets certificates.
Which brings us neatly to coal.
While the querulous contemporary right in Australia shows every sign of being entirely post materialist – fixated with the fate of James Cook statues, the perils of feminism and pesky gays wanting to make marriage genderless and put boys in dresses – one quasi economic fight lingers.
Coal persists, studded liberally through the talking points on Sky News after dark, and on 2GB.
Coal needs to be accommodated. I just want to mention that before returning to plotting the various points of the energy policy compass.
I don’t know what the AEMO report will tell the government about the baseload power requirements during this period of transition, but I think it’s reasonably safe to assume the market operator will say we don’t have enough dispatchable power in the system.
If so, the government’s task is to ensure there is enough baseload power in the system while we transition to a lower emissions future, and to a future where power generation in Australia is increasingly decentralised.
Logic takes us to the nub question: do we need a new coal or gas plant, and if we do, who builds it, the government or the private sector?
Gas, I’ve already mentioned, is expensive. That’s not the government’s easy fix.
So if you think the way the government thinks, the next logical landing point is coal. The government then has to consider the economics of new “clean” coal builds.
They are an expensive proposition, with distinct risks. There is carbon risk and there is political risk – added to the fact that it would take years to build a new plant, so you don’t really have a quick solution to what is largely a transitional problem.
So then, back at wicked problems HQ, the next landing point is: can we prolong the life of existing coal plants? Can you make them hang around in the system a bit longer while you push ahead with Snowy Hydro, and with bolting in storage to renewable power generation to deal with intermittency problems?
As the government moves into the final decision-making stage of energy policy, there is persistent talk around the traps about extending the operating life of the Liddell coal-fired power plant in New South Wales, set to close in five years’ time.
While rightwing culture warriors are fond of banging on about the virtues of cheap coal-fired power, the reality is this: the only form of cheap coal-fired power is the power generated by existing assets, such as Liddell.
When the government met privately with Australia’s energy companies (including AGL, which owns Liddell) in early August, the future of the ageing assets came up, and the operators telegraphed a distinct lack of interest in extending the life of their coal plants.
Liddell is due to close in 2022.
Anyone who turns on a television would already know that AGL in a business sense is already in a whole other place. It has a feelgood marketing campaign predicated on the company getting out of coal from 2022.
So if the government wants to push out Liddell’s operating life to solve one transitional problem, and AGL isn’t interested, then we get into territory like how might the government intervene in the market, and at what cost, both in dollars and emissions.
All this is swirling around as our parliamentarians prepare to make their journey back to Canberra next week. The government knows the energy policy resolution cannot be squibbed.
Having now made itself politically responsible for power prices by picking a cheap fight over Jay Weatherill’s wind farms, which triggered a cascading and at times deeply contradictory sequence ending up in the prime minister getting bogged down in the billing practices and customer communications of electricity retailers – the government now needs to show voters it’s fixing a substantive problem.
Now that I’ve laid out the policy dilemma, we can track back, briefly, into politics.
We are all painfully aware the Coalition collectively has incredible trouble being sensible when it comes to climate change and energy policy, and we know the Finkel fight is a proxy war to indulge other animus.
We know that a prime minister in all sorts of trouble is responding to his current difficulties by trying to put one foot in front of the other.
What we don’t yet know is whether a government battling difficulties on multiple fronts can keep its nerve and produce sensible policy.
Recent weeks have not given any sensible person cause for hope – but this is a test the Turnbull government cannot afford to fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment