Supplementary Submission No 6A SUSTAINABILITY of ENERGY SUPPLY and RESOURCES IN
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Supplementary Submission No 6a SUSTAINABILITY OF ENERGY SUPPLY AND RESOURCES IN NSW Name: Mr Adrian Ingleby Date Received: 6 May 2020 Adrian Ingleby 5th May, 2020 My second submission to the inquiry on Sustainability of energy supply and resources in NSW Re :- The inquiry’s terms of reference having been updated to reflect new economic challenges facing NSW in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to the existing terms of reference, the Committee will also consider the capacity and economic opportunities of renewable energy for workforces, industries, and the wider economy impacted by COVID-19. 1. In my first submission [on page 3] I said, “The renewable energy revolution can’t be stopped.” That claim remains true, however, it can be impeded and slowed down. Who has the power to impede the renewable energy revolution? 2. Politicians, governments, opposition parties at a state, territory and federal level. Why impede? - when our planet is threated by global warming and climate change? 3. The main source of energy supply to NSW and Australia over the past 100 years has been via fossil fuels in the form of coal, gas and oil. The lobby groups representing those industries support the two major political parties [LNP/Nationals & Labor] at a state, territory and federal level with massive donations. The sums of money donated are in almost equal amounts to the presiding government and its opposition. The fossil fuel energy sector have the advantage of being the larger long-serving incumbent energy supplier with established political contacts. They want to protect their business model and defend it against any opposition ie the renewable energy sector. 4. In my first submission I covered the issue of political donations and political compromise on Page 2 to Page 3 inclusive. The Federal LNP government have stated that they will not put a price on carbon and that they favour economic outcomes over environmental outcomes. 5. Further to my comments in my first report, the NSW LNP government has supported and is pushing for the approval of the Santos Narrabri Gas-field - 850 well project [fracking / unconventional gas] which stands on top of the recharge area for the Great Artesian Basin. 6. In 2019 the NSW., Independent Planning Commission rejected the Rocky Hill and Bylong Valley coal mines in NSW., The IPC took into account the long-term environmental impacts and heritage and agricultural costs which would be borne by future generations. Additionally, when coming to the decision to reject the projects, it took into account the greenhouse gas emissions that would have been produced when the coal sold was burned by overseas customers ie Scope 3 emissions. 1 7. In November, 2019 as a result of the IPC decision the NSW Minister for Planning of Public Spaces the Hon. Rob Stokes requested the Productivity Commissioner to conduct a review of the Independent Planning commission. The Productivity Commissioner found the IPC to be in the public interest and it will remain the determining authority for contentious state significant developments and public hearings will be maintained, but it did reduce it powers. 8 Further the NSW government prepared a bill titled the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Territorial Limits) Bill 2019. The “Overview of Bill” states:- “The object of this Bill is to prohibit the imposition of conditions of a development consent that purport to regulate any impact of the development occurring outside Australia or any impact of development carried out outside Australia.” 9. The actions taken by the NSW LNP Government as outlined in paragraphs 4 to 8 above, were most probably taken to defend a large treasury revenue source and as an act of solidarity with their long-term coal and gas lobby donators. In December, 2019, speaking at the National Smart Energy Summit in Sydney, NSW energy minister Matt Kean said he believes it would be “negligent” to miss the economic opportunities that would be created through embracing renewable energy, telling those with vested interests in the fossil fuel sector to get ready to “enjoy their Kodak moment.” https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-energy-minister-to- renewables-opponents-enjoy-your-kodak-moment-70541/ His government has nominated areas to be utilised as “renewable energy zones” in NSW with the aim to promote large renewable energy projects. https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-unveils-two-new-renewable-energy-zones- in-11-billion-net-zero-strategy-13866/ 10. The actions of the NSW LNP Government as outlined in paragraphs 4 to 8 above show that they are pulling in two directions at the same time. Queensland is doing the same with its fracked gas-fields and the Adani coal mine whilst they are also embracing renewables. The Northern Territory has approved fracking gas-fields at the same time that entrepreneurs are proposing to build multi-billion dollar solar and wind projects to supply renewable energy in the NT and to also send the same renewable energy via a sub-sea cable to Singapore. 11. The Guardian, 31.01.2020, reported that Prime Minister Scott Morrison has struck a $2bn deal with the New South Wales government to increase gas supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector. The deal includes at least $450m of federal grants and $510m more of federal grants or loans for “NSW-based emissions reduction initiatives”, to be matched by $1.01bn in direct funding from Gladys Berejiklian’s government. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/31/australian-prime-minister-scott- morrison-strikes-2bn-deal-with-gladys-berejiklian-nsw-to-boost-gas-supply 12. So the PM offers NSW $2 billion in funding, is ‘a deal’ requiring that they “increase gas supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector”. The funding is conditional on the deal! Unconventional gas extraction uses massive volumes of water, contaminates groundwater, depressurises aquifers and has the same C02 footprint as coal and releases large volumes of fugitive methane, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere; just to mention a few of the negatives. 2 13. Actions speak louder than words and it is clear that at a federal, state and territory level, their past and present close associations with the coal and gas lobby are hindering or impeding Australia’s fast transition to position itself for a grid of say 90% renewable energy. 14. Giles Parkinson the editor of Renew Economy published an article on 04.05.2020 titled, “It’s time Coalition listened to experts on climate and energy and plotted a Green New Deal”. https://reneweconomy.com.au/its-time-coalition-listened-to-experts-on-climate-and-energy-and- plotted-a-green-new-deal-47424/ The whole article is worth reading, but I will detail only some sections of his article, those which focus on the same issues that I raised above :- “In Australia, renewables are by far the cheapest new source of bulk generation,” says the Sydney-based BNEF analyst Lara Panjkov. The Australian Energy Market Operator then delivered the news that there is no technical reason why the grid can’t have a very high level of renewables in the main grid. It has already outlined, in its Integrated System Plan, a pathway to 90 per cent renewables by 2040, and last week it looked at what is needed to ensure that up to 75 per cent of the grid can be powered by wind and solar at any one time, by 2025. “Australia already has the technical capability to safely operate a power system where three-quarters of our energy at times comes from wind and solar energy generation,” says AEMO chief executive Audrey Zibelman, whose responsibility it is to keep the lights on. Zibelman agrees that wind and solar are clearly the lowest-cost way of providing electricity, but to harness that power source to its potential requires a change in market design and regulatory requirements. Some experts now argue that Australian can go a lot quicker. And gain even more benefits. Ross Garnaut thinks 100 per cent renewables is achievable in the early 2030s, ClimateWorks’ Anna Skarbek says a rapid uptake of renewables 75 per cent annualised, not just instant by 2030) is key to also lower emissions in buildings and transport. Many major utilities think AEMO is too conservative on some of its technology costs. But the biggest failure of Australia’s energy market in the last six years has been the glacial pace of market and regulatory reform, and infrastructure investment. And you can blame that on the lack of federal government leadership. Morrison and Co, the Australian political mob, like to boast that Australia has installed more wind and solar than any other country on a per capita basis over the last couple of years. The bitter irony is that they have spent much of the last six years trying to stop that very thing from happening, and now there is no short, medium, or long-term vision, to focus the minds of the regulatory bodies who have been so slow to move. The situation has so enraged and frustrated state ministers that they have gone their own way. Victoria and NSW have announced they are by-passing the federal regulatory framework because it is too slow to keep pace with their renewable energy targets. Nearly every state has emissions and renewable energy targets far more ambitious than the federal government, and the two states with the most ambition – Tasmania (200 per cent renewables by 2040) and South Australia (net 100 per cent renewables by 2030) – are both conservative governments. Which shows that this is not simply an ideological issue, unless there is the coal lobby involved.