New South Wales submitted material to the review of the RET currently being carried out by an independent panel. The state favours the policy, alongside Tasmania and South Australia. Victoria also submitted positive comments regarding clean energy including wind power. Australian Resources and Energy Minister Anthony Roberts and Environment Minister Rob Stokes also voiced public support for the policy.
“Premier Mike Baird joins Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman and South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill in voicing public support for the Renewable Energy Target in his state” said Clean Energy Council Chief Executive David Green. “Four studies released by leading energy market analysts this year have all shown the same thing – cutting the Renewable Energy Target will actually cost consumers more in the long run. Some analysts are predicting that gas may triple in price this decade, and less renewable energy would mean households and businesses will need to get more of their power from increasingly expensive gas. And this means higher costs.”
Analysts from Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysis said this week that renewable energy jobs and investment would go begging, consumers would pay more, and the only winners would be coal and gas generators if the Renewable Energy Target was cut.
Mr Green added that the states that chase the investment available under the RET will reap the benefits for their economies, particularly in regional areas that really need it. He said that although some detailed aspects of the submission clearly require further exploration, it is very positive to see the government recognise the benefits of the policy to consumers and the economy and that renewable energy continued to be the most popular form of energy among voters.
The independent panel reviewing the RET was appointed by the Australian Federal Government, creating uncertainty among investors and the industry. However, the Australian Industry Group, which represents around 60,000 businesses including many manufacturers, said in its submission that energy users would not benefit from either deep cuts to the policy or its removal.
For additional information:
