Extract from ABC News
Analysis
Federal Election 2022 - Australia Votes
If you thought Australia's infamous "climate wars" were staying out of the election campaign, think again.
The climate wars have claimed the heads of several prime ministers, and regularly left Australia near the end of international rankings for climate policy.
Last election we saw the Coalition claim modelling revealed Labor's (now weakened) emissions reduction target would take a "wrecking ball" to the economy — costing hundreds of thousands of jobs, pushing up energy bills and cost the economy half a trillion dollars.
That modelling was later widely criticised for some "ludicrous" and "absurd" assumptions. And it has been tacitly rejected by the Morrison government, whose own modelling suggests reducing net emissions to zero by 2050 would improve Australia's economy.
But the C-word didn't make much of an appearance in the first week of the campaign.
However, Tuesday saw Scott Morrison and his Energy and Emissions Reductions Minister Angus Taylor restart the battle, with the same tactics used before.
In a story run by News Corp papers — including the Daily Telegraph and The Herald Sun — "government modelling" reportedly found Labor's climate policy would slug the average consumer with a $560 hike on their annual electricity bill.
It seems there is no formal or detailed government modelling — certainly none that has been released — instead, it looks like some back-of-the-envelope calculations. And those calculations are misleading, according to several of the experts quoted in the Coalition's press release.
Labor's plan
At issue here is Labor's "Rewiring the Nation" plan, which would see $20 billion invested to modernise the electricity grid.
This idea, released in October 2020, is to allow renewable energy hubs to reliably transport electricity around the grid.
Labor commissioned detailed modelling by consultants RepuTex, which concluded the $20 billion Labor wants to spend would unlock another $58 billion of private investment.
And, far from pushing up bills, the modelling concluded that bills would drop by $275 by 2025 and $378 by 2030.
So where does the argument come up?
Well, here's the thing: When companies invest in the electricity grid, the regulator allows them to pass that cost on to consumers.
According to several energy experts, it looks like Taylor might have taken the $78 billion that would be invested under Labor, and calculated what the cost of that would be to consumers if it were all passed on.
However, according to the office of Labor's Climate and Energy Spokesperson Chris Bowen, much of that $78 billion would be spent on generation and storage, not on transmission. And investment in cheap renewable generation is not directly passed on to consumers, and would help bring down prices.
Experts say Labor overselling benefits, Coalition overselling costs
According to some of the experts quoted in the Coalition's press release, there's several more things wrong with the Coalition's claimed bill hike, and they show how Labor has tried to oversell the benefits of the plan, while the Coalition has tried to oversell the costs.
One person quoted in the Coalition's press release is Frontier Economics' energy and climate expert Matt Harris. His quote was taken from an opinion piece he wrote last year.
Harris says there's a bit less of a difference between the two parties than either of them make out when it comes to transmission investment.
Most of the projects that Labor's plan would make happen, would happen a bit later anyway, he says.
So the expenditure it unlocks — some of which would be passed on to consumers in bills — would also happen anyway.
"If you're committing to net zero by 2050 … then this is going to happen, regardless," he says.
Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute — another energy expert quoted by the Angus Taylor press release — agrees.
"The Liberals are saying Labor is going to build all this transmission and it will cost all this money. But they will need that transmission built too. The Liberals are taking credit for renewables being built — you can't do that without more transmission," he says.
Bruce Mountain is yet another energy expert quoted in Angus Taylor's press release.
He is critical of Labor's plan, in part, because he argues the federal government shouldn't be getting so involved in energy. But, again, he doesn't see this as something that distinguishes Labor.
Mr Mountain says the Coalition government was the one that got directly involved in energy — with Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the Kurri Kurri gas plant — and Labor's policy is taking that further.
As for the "government modelling" reportedly behind the new claims? Well, Morrison and Taylor were quizzed about it repeatedly on Tuesday and gave no further details. And, despite modelling being referred to in the News Corp papers, it was not mentioned in Taylor's press release, leaving the distinct impression there is no serious modelling to speak of.
If there is, then releasing it will allow a more serious public debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment