Australia’s Panel to Review Renewable Energy target – close ties with polluting industries!
(VIDEO) Alleged conflict of interest in energy review panel Australian Broadcasting Corporation Lateline Broadcast: 04/06/2014 Reporter: Kerry Brewster The expert panel which is deciding how much renewable energy Australia should produce is defending itself against claims of conflict of interest because an economist on the panel is using work he did for the oil and gas industry to argue the case for scrapping the renewable target.
Transcript
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: The expert panel which is deciding how much renewable energy Australia will continue to produce is defending itself against claims of conflict of interest. Solar advocates say economist Brian Fisher should step down from the Government’s review of the Renewable Energy Target. They say he previously did work for the oil and gas industry and that’s being used to argue the case for scrapping the Renewable Energy Target. This exclusive report from Kerry Brewster.
KERRY BREWSTER, REPORTER: For 14 years, the oil and gas industry has lobbied for the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target, or RET, to be dumped.
DAVID BYERS, AUST. PETROLEUM PRODUCTION & EXPLORATION ASSN: We would like to see the Renewable Energy Target removed.
KERRY BREWSTER: Now a Government-appointed panel is reviewing the target. And it hasn’t ruled out scrapping it altogether, a move that the renewable energy industry says would halt billions of dollars in new solar and wind projects and potentially bankrupt some large companies……..
KERRY BREWSTER: The modelling used to argue for the target to be scrapped is two-year-old work from BAEconomics, headed by economist Dr Brian Fisher. Dr Fisher is one of the four experts tasked by the Prime Minister to decide the target’s future.
Solar advocates are calling this a serious conflict of interest. They point to the fact the same modelling was rejected by the last RET review conducted 18 months ago by the Climate Change Authority.
JOHN GRIMES, AUSTRALIAN SOLAR COUNCIL: He’s been an active player, providing advice that’s been absolutely one-sided in the past, advice that’s still being used. Brian Fisher should step down from his position on this review committee……..
In the complex world of modelling, Bloomberg New Energy says it’s crucial to reflect not just the cost of renewables, but also the benefits. Its submission includes what it says APPEA’s modelling doesn’t: the ability of solar and wind to drive down the wholesale price of electricity when the sun shines and the wind blows.
KOBAD BHAVNAGRI, BLOOMBERG NEW ENERGY: That’s essential, really. You have to look at both the costs and the benefits of the scheme. Just like when you’re going to buy a house you look at the cost of buying a house versus the benefits of not having to pay rent anymore. It’s quite easy to highlight the costs and completely ignore the benefits.
MILES GEORGE, INFIGEN: In that modelling that was done for APPEA two years ago, there was no attempt to identify or model the wholesale price reduction that’s associated with renewable energy.
KERRY BREWSTER: Wind energy company Infigen says APPEA’s modelling doesn’t stand up to scrutiny……….http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4018998.htm
No comments yet.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Leave a comment