Clean Energy Finance Corporation is going backwards – Senate Estimates

, , ,

The CEFC holds $10 billion of taxpayer money to be used on wasteful green projects. They are meant to get a healthy return for splashing your cash at renewable pipe dreams, but their profit has gone down by 30% in a year.

All of this is to supposedly cut down on harmless CO2, which you and I breathe in and out all day. The fact that the CEFC exists is just another example of how green-left this apparently conservative government has gone.

Transcript

Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you chair. Could you tell me what is clean energy? Just a quick preliminary question before we get into it.

Well, ideally Senator clean energy is one that is doesn’t produce emissions.

[Senator Roberts] Emissions of what?

Emissions of carbon dioxide or their equivalent is how we would, I guess broadly considered clinically. I mean, it’s not a technical term, but in the, in the general parlance.

[Senator Roberts] So, what’s dirty about carbon dioxide?

Well.

[Senator Roberts] ‘Cause you’re exhaling it right now.

Yeah. I mean, it’s omnipresent around us. I appreciate that, Senator. But what we’re about is is trying to decarbonize the Australian economy in the electricity sector and the ag sector and infrastructure and property and so on. So that’s, that’s what we’re about. And part of that is investing in renewables which are of course, clean energy.

[Senator Roberts] So there are a few leaps there we’ll, we’ll ignore the leaps. But if we look around inside this building and outside. Everything that we see in here has come from the use of energy and human progress over the last 170 years has been due entirely to the ever decreasing cost in real terms of energy except for the last 25 years, since 1996 where the costs have doubled and in fact more than doubled. So we’re reversing human progress on the basis that carbon dioxide is a dirty gas, correct?

In fact, power prices during the day in many states of Australia are extremely low today, and in some cases have been negative. So I don’t know if that is always the case.

[Senator Roberts] Wholesale prices and consumer prices, especially for families have increased dramatically in the last 25 years. So let’s get onto the clean energy finances claim. This is quote, we invest to lead the market operating with commercial rigor to address some of Australia’s toughest emissions challenges in agriculture, energy generation and storage infrastructure, property, transport and waste with $10 billion to invest on behalf of the Australian government. We work to hope that’s the people we work to deliver a positive return for taxpayers across our portfolio. So the clean energy finance corporation is normalised surplus. What some people might argue is a kin to a profit from operations. Excluding extenuating circumstances in 2019-20 was $100.5 million compared with 143.6 million the year before. Isn’t that a disappointing decline? And do you expect a recovery?

We’re very proud of our economic record, Senator and the you know, the operating surplus that we produced last year we think is, we think is a significant achievement. In fact, when you take away from that operating surplus net operating circles the cost of government funding we still produce a profit for the Australian taxpayers. So we, you know I think what we’ve done investing successfully across all those sectors that you mentioned it has been a terrific achievement.

[Senator Roberts] So what does it return? I would calculate it as about 1%.

Well, it depends how you, how you look at it. Senator we, we’ve directed by the government to try and achieve a portfolio benchmark return across across the whole portfolio. And if you look at our sort of cumulative return through to 31 March of this year our return is approximately 4.63%. So I, you know, I think that’s a that’s a very positive return.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Secondly, the clean energy finance corporation impairment provision at 30th of June, 2020 was $121.1 million compared with 59.7 million in the previous year. So that’s a 100% increase and it represented 5.1% of loans and advances at amotised cost compared with 2.3% in 2018, 19. So it’s more than doubled.

Remember it’s a provision, senators. It’s no, it’s not a loss or right off of any of our assets. And we’re pleased to say that we have negligible losses in our portfolio across the course of the eight years that we have been, we’ve been investing. The increase is a reflection of some of the, you know, some of the challenges that we have taken into account in relation to wind and solar projects and the challenges with grid and marginal loss factors and curtailment. So to be prudent and conservative, we did increase in payment provision substantially last year. I’ll maybe get my CFO.

Senator, I might also just add that one of the factors that we were considering back in August when we were wrapping up the June financial year end was that everybody was projecting at that point that we were headed into a recession. And if you’re headed into a recession, your probability of default on loans will increase. So we prudently put extra money aside to provision for that event. Fortunately, with hindsight now we did not head into a recession. We were back on the way out and we’re, we’re experiencing growth now. So that prudent provision that stood there at that point in time was not needed because we did not suffer actual losses. That was just a provision —

[Senator Roberts] So the 5.1% includes the provision?

That was all provision. So it was purely a statistical calculation on the probability of default. If we had low electricity prices. We were headed into a recession and really the property market as well. People are looking at that and saying, we’re not quite sure what’s going to happen with valuations in property. And so we had to prudently provide for those things fortunately, not required in hindsight.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Thank you. What are your projections for impairment over the next five years?

Over the next five years, it’s actually spelled out in the budget papers and I can give you that exact number but effectively we’re not projecting an increase dramatically in the provision. So if we look at, I’m on page 166. The budget papers, and we provide in there on about halfway down the page, write down an impairment of assets. There’s in the budget year, 45 million. Now that’s a combination of two things. There’s about 20 odd million dollars of true impairment provision that we allow for. And about 25 million that we’re providing in the event that we have to invest at suboptimal rates to provide some stability in the grid. One of the things that’s factored in here is the grid reliability fund. We expect that we will have to invest equity. In some cases that equity may be at less than market rates. So instead of a concessional charge, it ends up as an impairment charge. You write it down to the fair value. Now that’s to make sure that the grid can cope with the, the ongoing changes to the generation nature.

[Senator Roberts] So how much have you on another question, how much have you written off in terms of lost capital and foregone interest?

Over the entire life of the corporation? I think from memory it’s like, it may be as high as 800,000. We can take it on —

[Senator Roberts] No, it’s, it’s a bit immaterial in the scheme of the scale of the CFC.

It’s lifting the signal. I’m going to give the call to send it to McAlester.

Okay.

[Senator Roberts] Everything that you’re putting money into has a subsidy. It can’t stand on its own merits. Aren’t you lending money out and expecting to get it back?

We, I mean, as you know, as we’ve discussed all our capital expected capital has been returned with the expected income. And, and I’m not sure about your statement there that everything that we’ve invested in is is receiving a subsidy. You know, we’ve a very broad investor, right? From large scale projects to, as I say, in property you know, even, you know, things like the build to rent sector and venture capital and clean technologies. And so I, you know, I’m not sure why you think that all all the sectors and all the companies and projects we’ve invested in would be receiving subsidies.

Senator, I’m Simon Avery, head of government stakeholder relations might be of some assistance there under our act. And this goes to the question you asked earlier about a definition of clean energy technology. The three heads of definition are renewable energy technologies energy efficiency, technologies and low emissions technologies. And so while as you point out renewable energy technologies may have some subsidies. For example, through the renewable energy target for most of the energy efficiency technologies there’s no subsidy involved. And in fact, over the life of the CFC, I think we’ve we’ve made about $9.1 billion worth of commitments. And there would only be about $55 million worth of concessional subsidy that CFC has itself offered 55 million odd over 9.1 billion of lifetime commitments is a drop in the bucket.

[Senator Roberts] So last question chair, the energy minister, Mr. Taylor has cited publicly the Bloomberg graph on investment per capita in various countries around the world in solar and wind. And Australia has double the per capita investment of any other country. Number two country, I think is America. It’s with just over double with six times China’s investment in that, even though they make all of our solar most of our solar panels and wind turbines. So other than providing still further assistance wind and solar. How does this funding encourage private investment in Australia’s renewable energy sector when the evidence suggested that we’re already over investing and bringing bringing quite damaging consequences to us as we’ve heard?

Yeah. I mean, there’s a couple of things in there, Senator, I mean, remember of course, Australia is a world leader in rooftop solar. So, you know, they’ve kind of in excess of two gigawatts of rooftop, solar is is installed each year at the moment in this country. So that accounts for some of the, you know the per capita figures that that you cite in terms of, you know, attracting, you know the use of the private sector and why isn’t that investing well, the good thing is that that we have been creating in private sector investment over the course of, of our life at the CFC and for every dollar that we have, in fact invested we have credited in $2.40 of third party capital. So part of what we’re about is, is coming into, you know into projects, you know, supporting companies and we at the same time are trying to attract in the private sector be they Australian banks, international equity, you know large scale infrastructure funds and so on. And so we’re about bringing in the private sector and you know, not creating any more now.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, chair.

/by

Destructive fire ants keep spreading – Biosecurity at Estimates

, , ,

Farmers at Gatton and beyond are petrified of the spread of destructive fire ants. Fire ants ravage crops and if they get into animals, they drive them crazy with pain. Left unchecked, they’ll turn productive areas effectively barren.

I asked the Department of Agriculture about what we are doing to eradicate them. Unfortunately, it looks like there isn’t enough money allocated to eradicate the destructive fire ants.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] How much is it costing Australia in funding the fight against spread and ultimate eradication of fire ants?

[Mr Tongue] Senator, it’s approximately $450 million dollars. I’ll defer to my colleague Ms Laduzko.

[Mr Metcalfe] These are red imported fire ants?

Yeah, red imported fire ants.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got domestic fire ants?

[Mr Metcalfe] No, we’ve also got the yellow crazy ants as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got a lot of ants.

[Mr Ludisco] The red imported fire ants particularly which are a particular problem in the Brisbane Valley.

[Malcolm Roberts] 400 million over what period?

[Ms Laduzko] Sorry, Senator Roberts, we have a ten year funding programme currently agreed across all States and Territories in the Commonwealth and the budgeted allocation for that current ten year programme, about which we’re nearly halfway through is 414 million.

[Malcolm Roberts] So about 41 million a year.

[Ms Laduzko] Yeah, roughly speaking.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How successful is the management and eradication programme?

[Ms Laduzko] We are four years into a sustained effort at eradicating an invasive ant that has got quite a wide spread. I think and I think I might’ve given this evidence last time to the committee which is we have been learning a lot more about the ant. It’s a very large scale eradication so we’ve been making progress but in the meantime, the programme which is actually led by the Queensland government has been trialling different ways of killing the ant through different bait combinations and technology so I’d have to say we’ve seen some positive signs and there are some learnings around eradication but the actual size of the task and whether it’s sufficiently funded are matters for current discussion.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you haven’t got any concrete measures other than that, you’ve just making progress? Not trying to be cheeky, I just would like to have something quantified. How do you assess progress? Because that’s an awful lot of money.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, assessing progress is an interesting question and partly we go through cycles of eradication and surveillance so we eradicate to a programme and then we go back and do surveillance to see how effective those measures have been. If you want specific information, I’d probably prefer to take it on notice because that would be what I would source from the program-leading Queensland government to make sure I’m accurate.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you.

[Mr Tongue] And Senator, just to describe there is the programme is run by an independent committee chaired by Wendy Crake who is a very distinguished authority in natural resource management matters.

[Malcolm Roberts] Queensland or Australia?

[Mr Tongue] Australia, Australia and as Ms Laduzko said, jointly funded and there is quite a significant amount of detail that we can provide you on notice about the roll out of the programme, how they’re measuring effectiveness, etc. It is just a very big eradication programme, that’s all.

[Malcolm Roberts] That would be useful because I’ve attended a meeting at Gatton, in the heart of the Valley, and the residents there were pretty upset that they don’t trust what the Queensland government is doing so yeah, I’d like to learn more about it, thank you.

[Mr Tongue] Certainly.

[Malcolm Roberts] How effective are similar overseas eradication programmes?

[Ms Laduzko] I think that it’s true to say, Senator, that nowhere has anyone successfully eradicated red imported fire ants. In fact, Australia is the only successful eradication outcomes and they were on smaller incursions that were, we were able to contain to port environments so we have successfully eradicated small outbreaks but it’s not my understanding that any other country has ever managed to eradicate.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is that ominous for the Valley?

[Ms Laduzko] Well, I think it gives us pause for thought around the size of the eradication and the funding commitment and what our long term strategy is but we do have it, you know, it’s, I think, there’s some stats that suggest if we’d done nothing from when we first saw it, it would already have largely covered the entirety of Australia by now and we have managed to keep it to a defined region.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay so in that sense, it’s effective.

[Ms Laduzko] In that sense, it’s effective.

[Malcolm Roberts] Or it may have delayed the overrun of Australia? We don’t really know yet.

[Ms Laduzko] That’s probably a fair call.

[Mr Tongue] Red imported fire ant is viable in 99 per cent of the Australian continent, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s actually being done on this in Australia? Are you just containing it or you’re trying to eradicate it? Sounds like you’re trying to eradicate it.

[Mr Tongue] It is an eradication programme. It has been going under various guises for a number of years now. In fact, this is a ten year programme. Prior to that, I think we’ve done a seven year programme ahead of that so it’s an eradication programme.

[Malcolm Roberts] How far are we into the ten years? Excuse me for interrupting.

[Mr Tongue] We would be between year four and year five.

[Malcolm Roberts] So we’re halfway through.

[Ms Laduzko] A little less than halfway.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, okay. So what’s being done in terms of the actual on the ground, what’s happening? I know the Queensland government is…

[Mr Tongue] Sorry, it’s quite a complex programme and it’s very large. The nuts and bolts part of it is we’ve agreed a programme for how we approach the eradication efforts so we have zoned certain areas and they’ve embedded a sentiment of moving from west to east with rolling eradication efforts and suppressing in those other areas. I haven’t got to so hard eradication, suppression, suppression, rolling forward but we also have to put a lot of investment in the edge to make sure it doesn’t further escape. The west to east model goes from rural land through to urban environments and that changes the nature of how you do eradication and how you engage the community.

[Malcolm Roberts] And it makes it difficult.

[Ms Laduzko] It does make it a bit more difficult, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s hard to tell where are we. At the moment, we seem to be stabilising in your opinion?

[Ms Laduzko] I think at the moment we have certainly, you’d have to say we haven’t allowed it to become worse and we’ve managed, I think, some success in the semi-rural areas. The question will be, as we get closer to those urban environments.

[Malcolm Roberts] What else needs to be done? What more needs to be done?

[Ms Laduzko] I think that’s an open question. You know, the scale of the response is enormous and it often comes down to funding and commitment of participants. Once you’re in an urban environment, everyone needs to be willing and engaged.

[Malcolm Roberts] So are there enough resources to achieve eradication?

[Ms Laduzko] Not something I’d like to comment on right now, Senator, we’re going through a bit of a review. Part of the resourcing question goes to what other strategies we can adopt. Is the technology moving ahead of us? Is the baits, are the baits becoming more effective? A few things like that so I think that’s probably a question perhaps you might like to pose in maybe next session when we’ve done a bit of our own efficiency review.

[Mr Tongue] And I should add, Senator, that it is a science-driven programme so we’re drawing on the best possible science we can. We’re trying to do something, as you’ve alluded to, that hasn’t been done anywhere else in the world. It is success to contain it at some level, it is success to contain it because it is a uniquely adapted little ant that really can move quite swiftly if left uncontained. The challenges around the urban areas, you know, baits, poisons, schools, backyards, you know, those sorts of things are quite difficult. We are also finding, I think in the programme, that the cycle of wet and dry, particularly in that kind of area of Southeast Queensland, can frustrate efforts, you know, lay baits, it rains, all of that work is lost. You go back again. So finding the kind of rhythm, the drum beat that will beat it is something that’s just under constant review. It is an enormous eradication programme and as Ms Laduzko says we’re re-looking at it at the moment and governments will need to make decisions.

[Mr Metcalfe] Not with a view for stopping it.

[Mr Tongue] Not with a view for stopping it.

[Mr Metcalfe] But with a view of how we do it, can we do it better?

[Mr Tongue] Can we do it better? If we up the cash burn rate, would we go faster? If we slowed the cash burn rate, will we do better? Some of those questions, you know. What is the right modality to get rid of it?

[Malcolm Roberts] Before I ask you my next question, it probably is associated with the next question, but just make the comment, not having a go at you but when people use the word ‘science’ around here, I usually start digging because it’s just usually opinion and no science. And in Queensland, farming is being devastated by the Queensland Labour government, citing science but being nowhere near science and they’re destroying whole communities, whole regions and farms so I just make that point. I’d like to see the science rather than believe it.

[Mr Tongue] Sure.

[Malcolm Roberts] So moving on that, on what basis are federal monies provided to the States to assist in these programmes? Because listening to a forum at Gatton, people seem be questioning the Queensland State government’s motives. Is there a different formula, for example, for stabilising and containing versus eradicating?

[Mr Tongue] There is a couple of ways to answer that. In the environment we work in when we do eradication responses, like for things that aren’t yet established, we have agreed deeds where States and Territories and the Commonwealth and industry, where relevant, have an approach they use for eradication and how they cost share that. The Reefer eradication programme we’re talking about started in advance of us having an appropriate deed structure to use so it’s run a little bit differently to other eradication responses but in essence, for us, we have a partnership agreement with the Queensland government that sets out milestones that need to be met in order for us to provide funding to a schedule.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there are conditions attached?

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, yep but consistent with many of these what are largely termed environmental eradication responses, the Commonwealth is contributing 50 per cent of the cost.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. So is this in any way an enduring money spinner for the States?

[Ms Laduzko] A money spinner? No, I wouldn’t characterise it that way.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could they manipulate it by taking various strategies, for example containment versus eradication, just to prolong it? That was a concern of constituents in Gatton area.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, you can see how that comes ’cause it gets to a point where in all eradications, this applies in small ones, large ones, you have to make a concluded position about whether you think eradication remains feasible and cost-effective. At the moment, we are signed up to an eradication programme.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

[Mr Tongue] And because of the structure of it, I would argue, Senator, how would I put this? All the jurisdictions involved, other than Queensland, have a huge interest in ensuring that the programme is running well because they’re all on the hook to fund it and so it would be very difficult for Queensland to manipulate a circumstance with the gaze of all the other jurisdictions upon it as well as the community where, if you like, they were turning this into some sort of money spinner.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s different about Queensland?

[Mr Metcalfe] That’s a very open question, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Apart from the fact that we win State of Origin very often.

[Mr Metcalfe] Well, that’s right, yeah. You’re talking to a Queenslander here, of course.

[Mr Tongue] So this eradication is just, is different because of scale and it’s different because it’s outside what we know as the deed structure. So what we have is risk sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories and industry, in the agricultural industries, they’re known as the plant deed and the animal deed, and they set up arrangements where we share risk and depending on the nature of the effort that needs to go into deal with a response to some pest or disease or weed, the scale of Commonwealth investment changes and those arrangements are managed by Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia and they’re bodies that, if you like, sit outside government and outside industry but they work across to manage those deeds. In this instance, we don’t have that arrangement so we’ve set up this independent style committee.

[Ms Laduzko] Just a slight qualification, we do but that arrangement came into place after we started.

[Mr Tongue] After we started this. This one’s slightly unusual and also scale, it’s vastly different.

[Ms Laduzko] And sorry, Senator, can I just correct something? I said 414 million, it’s 411.4. I think I was just truncating numbers.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, I appreciate the accuracy. And you’re going to send us some details on how you’re assessing progress? In a quantified way.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, if you’d like to put them through on notice and we’ll answer to that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Quantified.

[Mr Tongue] Yep.

[Ms Laduzko] Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

[Chair] Oh, right on time, Senator Roberts.

/by

Unreliable renewables killing our power grid – Australian Renewable Energy Agency Estimates

, ,

Even the energy minister has admitted he is scared for the future security and stability of our grid because of the rapid influx of renewables. Climate activists continue to falsely claim that wind and solar is the cheapest form of energy.

It’s a lie. When you take away the billions of dollars in subsidies coal is still the cheapest form of energy.

Transcript

[Senator Fawcett] Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for attending today. I’d like to ask questions on three topics. Firstly, prices, reliability and stability of the electricity network and supply. Secondly, hydrogen. And thirdly carbon dioxide storage. So firstly on prices, reliability, and stability. In your recent report on 14 large scale wind and solar projects in which ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation invested, it says that you “Played an important role in accelerating the early development of the large scale solar industry in Australia and the integration of utility scale renewable energy generation in the national electricity market.” Could you please confirm or correct these specific findings amongst others? Firstly, negative pricing impacts increased significantly in 2020, particularly for Queensland projects.

Senator, I’m not paying attention to the energy markets closely enough to answer that question.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Secondly, initial project forecasts consistently underestimated curtailment and residual losses, while capacity factors were generally overestimated.

Again, Senator, that’s a report I’d have to go back and have a look at to answer that question.

[Senator Roberts] Third one, incorrectly assumed adequate transmission. And fourthly, the regulator says power cannot be fed into the grid because of instability.

Sorry, what’s the question there?

[Senator Roberts] The regulator, could you confirm or correct whether the regulator says that power cannot be fed into the grid because of instability problems in the grid?

Senator, what’s the context for that?

[Senator Roberts] Well, these are the reports. This is a report in which ARENA and Clean Energy Finance produced on 14 large scale wind and solar projects.

I would need to refresh myself in the report to answer the question.

[Senator Roberts] I’ll just make the statements and maybe you could comment. The fifth point: Frequency Control Ancillary Services costs were both a significant expense and a major operational challenge for several projects. Although this reduced from 2019 to 2020, as Frequency Control Ancillary Services prices have fallen and several projects implemented sales forecasting. And the last point: the failure of critical equipment, especially failure of inverted power stack and the lack of market readily available spares were a major operational challenge for asset managers. Have these, and similar projects, contributed to the instability of electricity market over recent years?

Senator, I don’t believe so.

[Senator Roberts] Snowy Hydro seems to agree. They’re warning us that the transition from a stable base load power from coal is a fact and it’s going to be fraught with risk.

Well, Senator, as the penetration of renewables increases, those issues need to be addressed. The storage and the reliability of the system. You’re asking about the past, have they in the past, and I’m not sure that those projects have caused any instability, as you suggest.

[Senator Roberts] The estimated costs of Frequency Control Ancillary Services, lot of acronyms here isn’t there, for unreliables was initially estimated, about 20 years ago, at just 1% of the cost of electricity. This is before we got onto this transition. It’s not significant cost in coal gas, nuclear and hydro, yet with the unreliables, the wind and solar, it’s now around 8 to 9%. Is that a factor in your plans?

Senator, what’s unreliable?

[Senator Roberts] Wind and solar.

Variable renewables?

[Senator Roberts] Yes.

Right.

[Senator Roberts] So the cost Frequency Control Ancillary Services is now around 8 to 9%.

Senator, I’d have to go and check the market for you and get back to you. I’m not close to those numbers on a daily basis.

[Senator Roberts] Okay, so if you could take it on notice then, the cost of Frequency Control Ancillary Services in aggregate, across electricity sector, and also for wind and for solar, typically, are you aware that the Minister for Energy himself recently admitted, quite publicly and strongly, his fears about future prices, his fears about unreliability, and his fears about grid instability?

Yes.

[Senator Roberts] Aren’t these inherent flaws in unreliable wind and solar, that are not present, or are negligible, in coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear?

Senator, it’s very possible, technically and economically, to build a system with renewable energy that is reliable, safe, secure, low emissions, and low cost.

[Senator Roberts] But not base load power.

Ultimately, all of that combined gives you base load power because if you balance your wind and solar effectively, with pumped hydro, with batteries, gas generators, as the case may be, you can create base load power.

[Senator Roberts] Has anyone done it anywhere in the world, as a nation?

Senator, we’re well on our way to doing it in Australia.

[Senator Roberts] Okay. Coal, gas, hydro, nuclear in other countries, and formerly in our country, were they reliable base load power sources because they provided stability, reliability, and high energy density. Now, as I see it, and from what I’ve read, unreliables like wind and solar have very low energy density. That’s what makes them inefficient. That’s fundamental basic physics. They’re inherently high cost of making solar panels and wind turbines because of the high resource consumption. It takes for a kilowatt hour of coal, it takes about 35 tonnes of steel. For the same in wind, it takes about 543 tonnes of steel. So inherently higher cost, higher energy used in making them, and much more land needed for solar, and higher energy intensity in manufacturing. So to me, it just seems that the basics are not sound. I’d like your views

Senator, I’ll take solar for example. The technology I know a little bit better than wind. ARENA hasn’t funded any wind technology in our history. Solar has an energy payback of between 12 and 18 months, and the panels last for 20 to 30 years in the field. And the International Energy Agency has come out and said that solar PV is the cheapest form of energy ever, in the history of the world. So those themes from the International Energy Agency, and the things that we’re seeing, are aligned. We think that wind and solar combined with those other technologies to balance the system will give us a very cheap, stable, low emissions energy system, contrary to your perspective.

[Senator Roberts] So if for a given amount of energy needed from a solar panel, we need about three of them to take care of feeding a battery for taking us through the night, and also for days of poor weather. So is that factored in, or just the single solar panel? Because they’re the figures I’ve seen.

It’s the whole system, Senator.

[Senator Roberts] Yeah, I’d like, could you give me a breakdown of those, please? Because I don’t believe them. The breakdown of those costs.

Of what costs?

[Senator Roberts] Solar.

What would you like to know?

[Senator Roberts] I’d like you to compare a solar to a coal-fired power station, base load power. Battery, the number of cells you need.

Well, I’ll take it one question at a time. A solar farm built today can cost in the range of $40 to $50 a megawatt hour as its output. A coal station that you would build today would be at least double that, if it was a HELE coal station. And you’ve seen the prices for gas. We know that gas generators need at least $100 a megawatt hour, and an open cycle, and open cycle gas station to produce profit. So, solar at 40 to 50, and wind at about the same range, is cheaper than other forms of electricity generation today.

[Senator Roberts] So why is it that everywhere in the world, as the as the proportion of solar and wind increases, the cost of electricity in that nation increases dramatically.

Senator, I haven’t seen the figures that you’re talking about. You say every country in the world that’s done it, I’ve not heard-

[Senator Roberts] I’ve seen several graphs from independent sources showing, looking at it from your view, the more solar and wind increase, the higher the cost of electricity.

You’re welcome to share that with me. I can have a look at it.

[Senator Roberts] So One Nation commissioned Dr. Alan Moran, who was a First Assistant Secretary of the Industry Department, a First Assistant Commissioner of the Productivity Commission, and Deputy Secretary of Energy in the Victorian government, to report on the cost of climate and unreliables. Apparently, those figures used to be consolidated once but they’re no longer consolidated. Excluding the costs of transmission, expenditures on Snowy 2.0, and cost of market operator interventions, Dr. Moran has estimated the annual cost in 2018-19 over renewable energy subsidies and support at $6.9 billion. This estimate was made from publicly available information in state and federal budget papers and from regulatory authorities. So all from the governments. It comprises Commonwealth expenditures, the cost of Commonwealth subsidy schemes, and state expenditures and subsidy schemes. Do you agree with Alan Moran’s estimate of 6.9 billion?

Senator, I’m not aware of his work.

[Senator Roberts] Do you have any idea of the extra cost of solar and wind on top of the additional, on top of ordinary electricity costs?

Senator, those figures are readily available. And I think one of the things that gets missed when looking at that figure, for example, the subsidy figure, as you call it, is the benefit that the renewables have provided the system in terms of lower costs, as you’ve pointed out, you know, it has been pointed out that the effect of having wind and solar in the market is to suppress prices. And I think we can see that in today’s market. So I think you have to be fair and look at the benefits or the impact of renewables on a holistic basis, rather than just looking at the subsidies, which were necessary to get solar and wind, for example, to the point where they are the cheapest form of energy generation. And I think we’re seeing the benefit of that in today’s electricity prices, which are at record low levels, I think.

[Senator Roberts] Are you aware of the study in Spain that says for every so-called green job created there are 2.2 jobs that could have been created had they stayed with coal-fired power station?

Senator, I’m not aware of that study.

[Senator Fawcett] Senator Roberts, you’ve had a pretty good run. How much more do you have?

[Senator Roberts] I’ll ask one more question on this topic, and perhaps we can come back if there’s, if I’ve got time afterwards.

[Senator Fawcett] We’re already well over, in terms of our schedule. I’m keen to move on to Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

[Senator Roberts] What is the effect of these unreliables, wind and solar, compared with the Prime Minister Gillard’s Labor carbon dioxide tax? Do you have any idea?

Sorry Senator, I’m not quite clear how to even answer that question.

[Senator Roberts] Well, I’ve been told that an estimate is that the cost of the Gillard carbon dioxide tax is about half the cost of these extra wind and solar costs on our energy sector.

Senator, I’m just not sure. I can’t answer that question as you’ve put it.

[Senator Roberts] I’ll put the questions on hydrogen and carbon dioxide sequestration on notice.

Thank you.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, Chair.

/by

Senate Estimates – Is the Government looking at the Iron Boomerang?

, ,

One Nation has their eye on important infrastructure projects across the country.

Projects like the Iron Boomerang, connecting the West Australian iron ore fields with the Queensland coalfields so we can make steel in the country, could set our country up for decades.

Transcript

[Woman] Senator Roberts.

[Man] Thank you, Chair, thank you Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] My questions are designed to see where the department is up to, if at all, on some major infrastructure projects that have been brought to my attention on recent listening and fact finding tours to Northern Australia. First one is the Iron Boomerang to connect the Pilbara iron ore with Bowen Basin coal to create a new Australian steel capability with more than $50 billion a year.

Thanks Senator. Shona Rosengren, Assistant Secretary in Queensland, Northern Territory and WA. So obviously we’re, we’re aware of the discussions around Project Boomerang. What, there is no current Australian government commitment to the project. However, we have already got commitments of $330 million on the Outback Way. Over $700 million in NAP and beef projects in Northern Australia.

[Malcolm Roberts] Excuse me, the Outback Way being the highway.

Being a highway, yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] not the railway.

And also $8.4 billion in roads of strategic importance projects across Northern Australia as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] But nothing on the railway line.

[Rosengren] But noting on the railway line.

[Malcolm Roberts] Is it seen, the Iron Boomerang, is it seen as really a very, very important security issue for us because it’ll give us independence and sovereignty over our steel industry and steel imports? And also make Australia a significant global player in steel?

I understand the dynamics of the project, but it’s not one that currently has Australian government commitment to it.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Secondly, is the department working on any proposal to extend inland rail north to Gladstone or Townsville?

Not at this stage no, Senator. I think we’ve looked at business cases on that front I think twice in the last–

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, what was that?

There’ve been business cases considering a Northern connection to Gladstone, I think twice in the last five years or so. But I’ll confirm with my colleagues through the afternoon.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Thirdly, is the department working on any project to connect the Adelaide to Darwin rail line with the Northern Rail System via Longreach or Mount Isa? Again, another national security issue. Enabling competition between ports, and also security if one of the ports goes out, or if the rail line goes out. Because the current rail line is… No?

[Man] No sir.

[Rosengren] I’m not aware of anything.

[Malcolm Roberts] It would mean easily moving troops from Townsville to Darwin. Okay, the fourth question. The Tully Millstream hydro project, power project, to provide 600 megawatts of clean baseload power into the national grid. Anything on that?

Not under the, I’m only responsible for road and rail projects. I’m not aware of the, the water grid.

Is anyone in Infrastructure Australia available to comment on that?

[Rosengren] It would be under the water .

Yeah, Infrastructure Australia is on tomorrow morning. That might be a Water question, or potentially an Industry question.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you probably won’t know this one either. Is the department working on any hydro projects in what is loosely called the Bradfield Catchment from Charters Towers to Cairns?

[Rosengren] I’m not aware in my responsibilities.

Yeah, I think potentially a question for the Water Grid Authority on Friday?

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, sixth. A space launch facility currently proposed for Abbot Point in North Queensland?

[Rosengren] Again, beyond my responsibility centres.

[Malcolm Roberts] So your departments are, your agency’s responsible for expenditure on projects more than $1 billion?

No, road and rail.

[Malcolm Roberts] Just road and rail.

So land transport.

[Man] Mostly deal with land transport.

[Malcolm Roberts] Mostly, what else?

Well, it’s land transport. We’ve got regional projects. We’ve got city deals.

[Malcolm Roberts] Regional projects, that’s brings up the seventh one which is the copper string to high voltage power transmission line, to bring Mount Isa into the national electricity grid.

I think the electricity projects are probably a matter for Department of Industry. So, DISER.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thanks Chair.

/by

Senate Estimates – Why is the Government still using Gender Neutral Language?

, ,

My motion last month calling on the government to ditch Gender neutral language passed the Senate. Despite this, the government style guide still includes these gender neutral terms. The Digital Transformation Agency creates the style guide, I asked them why they were defying the will of the Senate.

Original Motion: https://web.archive.org/web/20210331123928/https://7news.com.au/news/social/one-nation-pushes-motion-through-senate-banning-use-of-distorted-gender-inclusive-language-c-2379125

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] I’d like to ask questions about the style Manual, which is produced under the auspices of, the digital transformation agency. It’s something very dear to the chair’s heart. I don’t know, she’s stated this in public, language is crucial as a very powerful driver of behaviour and it’s been shown to be influential, for many hundreds of years now. So our office recently investigated the origin of the style manual and we got this advice. These quote, “The Australian government style manual was produced under authority from the Australian government. It is a government publication, but there does not appear to be, any specific regulatory or legislative framework under which it was produced,” Is that correct?

I would need to take that on notice, Senator I’m sorry.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, my understanding is, there’s no specific regulatory or legislative framework. So I noticed that this seventh edition, was compiled by working group with 167 different agencies. There you go Senator Gallagher, you’re always helpful, 167 different agencies, some of whom are organisations, some of whom are individuals, some are voluntary, some are paid part time. How much did edition seven of the Star Manual cost? And what is the annual budget of the style manual unit?

So I will need to look behind me to see, if we have anybody with the numbers, for the the cost of producing the style manual.

So just, we’ll get the numbers for you as soon as we can Senator, but the the actual style manual team is very small. It is purely on a sustainment footing right now, which means the sustainment is just minimum support. So we have a digital edition, which we have produced, which you would be well aware of. Some are very keen still to get paper copies, as you would expect and lots of very enthusiastic participants, but the the investment in the style manual has largely ceased.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, someone has got to keep going with this, because there’s a document on the website, that says help us improve the style manual. So someone collects this feedback and then actions it, So there is an ongoing cost. So have you worked at how much it is going to cost to go through all the federal government business and implement the changes called in this style manual?

Yes Senator we have released the latest edition and beyond that, the feedback that we take, will potentially make incremental improvements. The benefit we have though, with the style manual being digital is that, it is much simpler for us to make minor refinements than it is where you have a physical document. So it is, as I said, a very small team, it’s one or two people, and they respond to feedback and ensure that the product is maintained with very small sets of changes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So if it’s not a referable document that can be referenced, how do you maintain the integrity of the document? How do we make sure that no one can just walk in and change it when they so want to?

And so we put controls around changes to the document. If it’s helpful, we’ll provide on notice a summary of the team, the level of change, and then how we’re ensuring that the actual product is change controlled in the way that you would expect it to be.

[Malcolm Roberts] So correct me if I’m wrong, the document only exists on a web page at the moment, there’s no printed copy authorised?

So other than the copies that we have produced for editing and so on, there are no hard copies.

[Malcolm Roberts] But there’s not a copy that the minister authorises or anyone has authorised or anybody has authorised?

Sir we had, as you demonstrated many stakeholders who were participating in the refinement of the style manual in the latest edition, I’ll come back to you with the details as to how that process was undertaken to the point at which this is the specific person who authorised the final copy and the how do we manage it.

[Malcolm Roberts] And who is the guardian of changes in future. And what about, has anyone in the government done the costing of what it would cost to change thousands of web pages to make sure that language is complied with, thousands of forms? Has anyone done the costing of that? The implementation cost of this?

I wouldn’t have thought so, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. At the end of the development process did the minister approve the final format?

Also I’ll come back to you on notice on that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. I note that the style manual prevents the use of the word junior to describe an adolescent. Have you told all the foot junior footy clubs around Australia that they have to change their name to adolescents?

I don’t believe we have said adolescent footy clubs.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I’m even told that the word youth, let me better get this right. The word youth is okay. The word young people is okay, but the word junior or juniors or youths is not okay. So I noticed the style manual also requires federal government employees to find out the user’s preferred pronoun. Now you didn’t follow your own manual, because nobody asked me what my preferred pronoun was. So, is it more than a recommendation or is that all it is?

Senator it’s a reference for good writing. And in order for us to provide that advice, there is a level of discretion that can still be applied at the individual author level. This is good practice guidance that has been updated to be more contemporary than the last edition.

[Malcolm Roberts] Based upon what a lot of people have inputted but no reference to the English language or dictionaries or custom and practice of what our language means. Just a lot of opinions going in. You don’t look familiar with the process, okay. My Senate motion number 1055 sought to remove use of gender neutral language from federal government business. I asked the office of digital transformation to update the style manual accordingly and they advised it wasn’t necessary as the specific language expressions in my motion were not contained in the style manual, is that still your position?

I will come back to you Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, now your web pages are not numbered for reference in the section on language, your web page advises use gender language, to use gender neutral language. Now federal programmes are being changed to gender neutral language and your style manual has given us the reason, but apparently the department refuses to remove or qualify this gender neutral requirement, is that correct?

Senator, I’m going to need to come back to you with.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I’ve got a few final terms chair, that I’d just like to check, which is recommended by the office of digital transformation for these common terms, breastfeeding or chest feeding.

Senator, I have not.

[Malcolm Roberts] Breast milk or chest milk? Father or non birthing parent? Mother or gestational parent? My motion has the effect of about preventing this language, and now your proposing use of this language. Does that mean you defying the will of the Senate? It did pass.

I think it did.

/by

Senate Estimates – How much GST are we losing at the border on imports?

, ,

Millions upon millions of parcels flow into Australia every month. Some dodgy operators avoid paying GST on imports by understating the value of the goods being posted. This is a huge disadvantage to our Aussie shops and we need to be doing more to enforce the rules on GST for foreign imports.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] I have some brief questions on border force. How many parcels come through Australian border force each financial year?

So Senator just give me one second. I’ll just get, I might just ask deputy commissioner Saunders to join me at the, the front table as well. In terms of parcels, probably I might describe it slightly differently if I could. So air cargo consignments, if I could start there cause Senator the goods coming into Australia, primarily from a border screening point of view is either sea cargo, stuff that comes in containers, air cargo, stuff that comes in crates in the belly of aeroplanes and international mail. So in terms of air cargo consignments between the 1st of July, 2020 and the 31st of March, 2021 there were 54,340,909 consignments in relation to sea cargo, there’s been a significant uptake. So I’ll give you the numbers for 19 and 20 first of all. So between the 1st of July, 2019, 31st of March, 2020 there were 2,472,286 consignments. Between the 1st of July, 2020 31st of March, 2021, 7,449,539 consignments. The reason for that is because of COVID-19 because of changes in logistics, supply chains, etc, a lot of people shopping from home, smaller consignments and the the freight forwarders need to get it here somehow. And there just isn’t a number of aeroplanes coming to Australia to support all of that coming through air cargo. So a lot of, a lot of the smaller consignments are now coming in containers and that’s led to a significant increase. In terms of international mail you see that data is actually commercially confidential because obviously Australia posts are in competition with you know, freight forwarders and other sort of international supply chain sort of companies. And, we don’t put those numbers out there Senator in terms of Australian international mail.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. But the total number of consignments for the nine months, July 20 to March 21 was 54 million, including air, mail and sea.

Well not including mail, I can’t give you that number because that’s commercially sensitive because Australian posts are sort of a, you know there’s a single commercial entity and they’re in competition with other people in the market. We don’t put that number out there. So what I’ve given you is in terms, sorry, air cargo consignments 54,340,909

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s just for air.

That’s for air, cargo. And for sea cargo an additional almost seven and a half million, 7.449 million.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you very much for that. How many of these parcels are checked for value and whether or not GST is applied?

I might just call

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry commissioner, just on that number, the sea cargo is that, how are you quantifying that number?

Consignment, so a consignment is obviously

[Malcolm Roberts] Do you define that as per container or how

No consignment is if you import a good into Australia, that’s a consignment, so that could be an entire container load that you have or if you’ve got lots of lines of goods in a container, so let’s say a freight forwarding company wants to get a lot of consignments to Australia, previously they might put them in a crate in the belly of an aeroplane, whereas now they’re putting them in containers. So we’re getting containers with lots and lots of consignments in them.

[Malcolm Roberts] I see, thanks for clarifying.

Does that make sense?

So it’s an individual entry for an importer of a good and that can be a private person or a commercial entity.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Thanks.

Thanks Senator Roberts. I might just ask Vanessa Holben here in terms of the, the GST question. If I could, it goes to matters of customs policy.

Vanessa Holburn group manager, customs group, Australian Border force. So your question is related to GST?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. How many of the parcels that come in, consignments, are checked for value and have GST applied?

So I’ll need to take on notice the number of consignments that are checked. What I can give you though, is the dollar value of the undetected, undecided GST detected?

[Malcolm Roberts] The under?

The undecided GST detected. So that’s, that’s where they haven’t obviously claimed GST. So the dollar value, would you like it in the financial years?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes, please.

So 2019-20, 25,827,753. I can go previous years if you’d like to as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] No it’s fine.

Year to date, so 31st of March, 2021, 411,719.

[Malcolm Roberts] So that’s the, could you say that again? What is that 25 million?

So we determine it, we determine it as understated, GST detected.

[Malcolm Roberts] Understated, GST detected.

Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what does that mean? Understated? So that means only the only the parcels that have been where the GST has been understated and where it’s detected.

Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what proportion of parcels are waved through without checking to see if GST should be paid.

That’s what I need to check on notice for you.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Is there any estimation of how much GST has not been paid per year? It’s a massive task as, as Mr. Adam just told us.

Again, I’ll need to check that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How many notices are sent out to call in GST prior to the parcel being released?

I’ll need to check that on notice Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is the estimated loss to Australia per year for the lost or forgone GST?

I’ll need to take that on notice

And senator, we’ll take that on notice, but also we do obviously with GST, recognise other departments have a stake in the GST question, the ATO and treasury. So we will take it on notice, but we’ll, we’ll also link in with our other departments who have an interest in the GST policy.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What has been done to assist the cost of this forfeit and to implement a remedy. We’ve got to define the problem before we can solve it. With 54 million consignments, I’m sorry, 61 million consignment, it’s a pretty massive opportunity.

Can you repeat the question again Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts] What’s been done to assess the, the loss of revenue the forgone revenue, and to implement a remedy.

We can talk about our audit inspection control programme.

So, so the compliance, we have a compliance programme obviously to detect non-compliance through those avenues.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s sampling is it?

Correct, yes so there’s targets and there’s profiling. Also we do business engagements, that’s around educating those that are importing to ensure that they are quickly classifying the goods and obviously paying those duties attached to those goods.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there’d be hidden costs, is the government, I don’t know who to ask this question of, perhaps a minister, perhaps Mr. Adam, is the government aware of the hidden cost to Australian manufacturers and retailers who must add GST to their goods, whereas imports bypassing customs do not?

Probably a matter of policy I suggest, and maybe a different department would be best placed to answer that.

I’ll say, we are aware in the general sense of the matters you raise, but I’d need to take on notice the quantum of that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, so depends on the size of the problem, I understand that. So is it possible to consider another solution being tax reform? Another way of levying the tax?

Those options are always available to be considered by policymakers.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, Thank you very much.

/by

Government has no idea how much renewables cost – Clean Energy Regulator

, ,

This government already funnels billions of dollars into renewable energy projects. As huge as that cost is, there is an even bigger silent one: the cost of complying with green regulation.

I was shocked that the Clean Energy Regulator, with a $75 million budget, has never made an estimate of just how much that cost is to business and Australians.

Transcript

Senator. So Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for attending tonight. First of all, what’s clean energy?

[David Parker] Senator, as the Clean Energy Regulator, we have a range of legislation that we’re entrusted to administer and the relevant bits of clean energy are defined in that legislation.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what are they?

[David Parker] Oh, there’s a range. Charlene, would you like to have a go at that?

[Charlene Thompson] Charlene Thompson, Executive General Manager, Scheme Operations Division. So Senator, as part of our administration of various legislative schemes, we are entrusted with looking after the two aspects of the renewable energy target. Which includes the large scale renewable energy target and the smaller scale target. And I believe the eligible technologies under that Act include solar, PV, wind power, I think there’s some bio methane in there as well. So, those things are essentially eligible activities or technologies that attract the incentive provided by the renewable energy target.

[David Parker] So there’s one other, which is heat pump hot water.

[Charlene Thompson] That’s right, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, what was that?

[David Parker] Heat pump hot water. So, it’s the new hot water systems. Rather than having, you know, electricity go through a resistive heater or a gas heater. You have a heat pump on like a reverse air conditioner, which puts heat into the water. They’re more efficient, use less electricity.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s defined as clean, is defined in the regulations, which you have to enforce?

[David Parker] Well, for our purposes, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. The purpose of the agency is listed as being accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. I think that means carbon dioxide. Any such goal must be tempered by the costs this entails. The Regulator administers a range of programmes, including the Emissions Reduction Fund, the Renewable Energy Target, and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. The Regulator has a budget of about $75 million. Is that about right?

[David Parker] That’s about right, yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s generally recognised that the costs imposed on business by regulations is considerably in excess of the direct costs of the Regulator itself. So, more than your $75 million. Have you estimated the cost of compliance by businesses as required by the government’s regulation review guidelines?

[David Parker] Well, in terms of our existing regular regulation, no, we haven’t done a survey, but let me say, as a matter of culture, we take it as one of our duties to reduce the cost impact of the legislation that we administer. And I think it would be fair to say that we have a good record in that.

[Malcolm Roberts] How do you do that? And what kind of examples can you give me?

[David Parker] Yeah, Okay. So I can give you a range of examples. So, let me take one in the small scale renewable energy space.

[Malcolm Roberts] Small scale?

[David Parker] Small scale. So, this is solar panels on roofs, for example. When that scheme was originally conceived it involved people filling out lots of forms. The forms were shooting out all over the place and eventually winding up at the Regulator. Then we’d have people look at the forms, that would take some time, obviously filling in forms and moving information around the various parties in the industry would have a cost. As one of the innovations that was co-developed with industry, we now have a process called the Solar Panel Validation Arrangements. I won’t go into all of the details, because that will take some time, but broad broadly speaking, what it means is that the installer takes out their telephone. There’s an app on that telephone. They take a photo of the panels, where they’ve been installed. Before and after, so that you can see that it’s been done. That’s an Andy Ford measure. Takes a photograph of the relevant barcodes on the panel. So we know what panels are there. And then, you know, essentially you press submit information. So, it goes through the network, the web, to the various people involved, and it quickly ends up in our shop, for the purposes of validating the install and providing the Renewable Energy Certificates. That data essentially just goes directly into our systems and doesn’t require very much human intervention at all. And so that reduces the time taken to do this. And I could give you a range of other suggestions, like that.

[Malcolm Roberts] So a new scheme is coming in, the Corporate Emissions Reduction Transparency Report.

[David Parker] Yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] And it seeks to gather and codify information from all companies rather than the 2,500 presently covered in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. The scheme was open to public comment until 19th of March, 2021 in a government media release of 19 February. At 28 days, seems a bit short. Was this part of the regulation impact statement procedure required by the government? And have you estimated the paper burden costs of the scheme?

[David Parker] Well, let me just correct some of the facts that you stated. It’s not a requirement to all companies. It’s a requirement for us to set up a framework, which we’ve done. It’s a voluntary arrangement.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s an opt-in.

[David Parker] It’s an opt-in.

[Malcolm Roberts] Strictly speaking, it’s an opt-in.

[David Parker] Well, whether you call it strictly speaking or want to go to the issues about companies who’d want to opt in and why, it’s formally an opt in arrangement.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is this scheme proceeding?

[David Parker]A scheme is still in the process of development. You told quickly the story of the proposal being put out for consultation, we’ve got quite a substantial amount of feedback from industry about that. In essence, if you like, the scheme is about moving reporting from and this is itself, a simplification, moving reporting under the search process to the extent that companies opt in, moving that from gross emissions. Which is the arrangement under the so-called NGERS Reporting, National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System over to a net story, if companies wish to opt in. And companies, as part of that, will be able to tell their story about how they’re proposing to reduce their net emissions position.

[Malcolm Roberts] So when you talk about emissions, you’re talking about carbon dioxide?

[David Parker] Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

[David Parker] Or equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry?

[David Parker] Or equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, methane. You’re not talking about nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, particulate or any of the real pollutants.

[David Parker] Well, nitrous oxide is a relevant gas that’s covered. So, anything that anything that’s covered, yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it covers real pollutants too? Now it is an opt in programme, as you said. Yet it’s likely, it seems, that green activist organisations will use it to target those companies that initially choose to opt out. To not opt in.

[David Parker] Well, look, I think that remains to be seen. I wouldn’t speculate on how we will use, who might opt in at this stage. I mean, it’s very early in the process. I mean, it’s quite clear that the way climate change issues are being thought about has moved quite clearly into the net space as opposed to the grey space. And so, what this report does is intended to align with that shift.

[Chair] Roberts again, I’d like to hand the court over to Senator Davidson. You can ask two more questions, if you’d like. Then we’ll pass it over.

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you offer information regarding the compliance costs for business?

[David Parker] Look, it’s difficult to say. It will depend on how a company chooses to opt in, on what basis. Whether that’s an equity basis or a basis that comes directly out of the NGERS arrangement. So it’s one of these things, which is quite difficult to say at this point in time.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, last question, if the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, and I’m told that we have achieved it, why is there a positive price to the renewable energy target subsidy target itself? When any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers to incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve already achieved it, why are we driving more subsidies to achieve even more?

[David Parker] Well, the price of Large Scale Generation Certificate, so let’s just focus on that, for the purposes of discussing the question. So, the legislation sets a statutory target of 33,000 gigawatt hours. And a couple of things to observe. So there was a statutory target through time, but also a mechanism embedded in the legislation to permit, in technical terms, arbitration. Not arbitration, but arbitrage between the years, pardon me. And there is still some obligation that remains to be met, should a company wish to, right? They’ve taken so-called default arrangement out of that. They could redeem those payments for a certificate. So there’s some sort of old demand. And the other point is that that target is not the only demand that’s there in the market. So, it’s possible for people to voluntarily surrender certificates if they wish. And there are some schemes which also connect into the scheme, such as Green Power. Where, if people wish, they can sort of tick the box, I’m using term somewhat pejorative, but choose to purchase low emissions energy from the energy retailers. And I won’t go into all the details, but that also flows through into an LGC demand on top of the statutory target. So prices are hitting down. We expect them to hit down further, but in terms of where they go over time, as some of those things that I’ve explained with them work themselves out. Where the price heads over time, there there’s a range of views about that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

/by

People don’t want wind turbines in their backyard – Senate Estimates

, ,

I questioned the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner at Senate Estimates. This is one the dozens of climate related agencies that the government pays for in their never-ending pursuit of renewables.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you chair. Thank you, Mr. Dyer, for being here with us.

[Mr. Dyer] My pleasure.

[Malcolm Roberts] The data shows the large project subsidy is around $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide and that’s close to $40 per megawatt hour. If the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, which is what we’re told why is there a positive price to the renewable energy targets, certificates effectively subsidy when any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve achieved the target, why is it still there?

[Mr. Dyer] It’s a fantastic good question, but it’s not my area of expertise overall or roles I’m the ombudsman effectively for renewable energy and transmission. So it’s not, one I can comment on

[Malcolm Roberts] Are you the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner?

[Mr. Dyer] It’s formerly the National Wind Farm Commissioner.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah the National Wind Farm Commissioner, okay. So the history of manufacturing, the history of farming, the history of just about any service if it’s dealt with closely and evaluated closely then managing a process is most productive and efficient when variation is minimised. So what we’ve got now is an increase in variation of supply from electricity, and that’s the most crucial sector. So the sector that determines our manufacturing success, our agricultural success, our processing success, the quality of life, the affordability of energy is now being driven by increasing variability through wind and solar which have notoriously variable, energy supplies. Is there any thought been given to that? That’s inherently more expensive.

[Mr. Dyer] Senator, my role is to help work with communities and proponents and governments to help the rolled out of projects to occur in the country around the country. I don’t set the policy about what should be put out there on a pathway to help resolve concerns.

[Malcolm Roberts] Do you have any concerns from citizens as I do from our constituents that we’re supposed to be doing all of this stuff, transitioning to unreliable energy because of climate yet, we’re transitioning to the two things that are make us even more dependent on weather and climate variability, seems insane to me. Do you have any constituents as I do who are complaining about that?

[Mr. Dyer] Most constituents, the complaint to us, very supportive of renewable energy, but just don’t want one in their backyard.

[Malcolm Roberts] Why is that?

[Mr. Dyer] Because of the perceived impacts of the visual amenity noise, property values, of fire risk and a whole range of things that might to be tabled to our attention.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s low vibes, low frequency vibrations in particular?

[Mr. Dyer] Yes. There have been a body of complaints about what’s called infrasound.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. Yeah. I’ve heard them of people in severe pain, trauma almost due to it. Has any study being done on the impact of wind turbines on energy and Earth’s atmosphere and the effects of that wind turbines taking energy out of the atmosphere.

[Mr. Dyer] Not to my knowledge.

[Malcolm Roberts] It might seem very minuscule but then you see labor’s carbon dioxide tax was introduced to cut the number of carbon dioxide molecules in air from one in 5.7 million produced by humans to one in 6 million. So that seems very minuscule too but we’ve got a whole industry and the decimation of other industries based on a theory that when in reality nature is shown to control the level of carbon dioxide in the air. So no studies have been done looking at the effect of taking energy out of earth’s atmosphere and out of the earth’s winds that you’re aware of. I’m not aware of any either.

[Mr. Dyer] No, there’s been theories around that. Wind turbines might cause frost because they take the wind out of the sail, so to speak. And the top here that might protect vineyard from causing frost could be at risk. But when we’ve dug into those research matters there hasn’t been any substance to them.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So wind sources of power are not reliable. They’re unreliable, they’re costly inherently so because they’re very low density energy they’re unstable in terms of they’re being asynchronous. When they’re added to the grid, they increase instability. They’re scattered, which increases transmission costs. They have limited life sometimes as short as 10 to 15 years then I have an environmental legacy with massive burials in Wyoming for example. I don’t know what’s going to happen in Australia. Is anyone talking about those issues?

[Mr. Dyer] Decommissioning is certainly a big topic at the moment as we come to end of life of many wind farms around the country and who pays, who is accountable, what is the disposal, disposal mechanism for things their blades is a hot topic. Thank you very much Mr. Dyer.

/by

Here’s one for the Farmers: Restoration or Compensation (Climate Change Authority)

, ,

The government has been able to cut down emissions mostly on the back of locking up land and stopping farmers from using it. This huge infringement on property rights by the states has been done without compensation. It is disgusting that governments have locked up farmer’s land to meet United Nations emissions targets. Every farmer deserves either restoration of their rights to use the land how they need or compensation for the rights they have lost.

Transcript

Hanson-Young, Senator Roberts. You have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair. Thank you for being here. Minister, I’d like to ask you a question. Several questions, in fact. In order to comply with the UN’s Kyoto climate protocol in 1996, the then Howard Anderson Liberal National’s Government appropriated farmers’ property, specifically land property rights. But section 51 clause 31 of our country’s Federal Constitution requiring the payment of just terms compensation. So what the Howard Anderson government did was a deal with firstly the Borbidge National Party Government in Queensland state government. And later, that was in 1996, and then a Memorandum of Understanding. And then in 1998, the Howard Anderson Government did a deal with the Beattie Labour Government. Again, a state government. So these state governments initially signed a Memorandum of Understanding and later passed state laws forbidding the clearing of land under various guises such as native vegetation protection. So they appropriated farmers’ property rights for the Howard Anderson Government to comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. And that’s in writing from Premier Beattie. And it’s, it’s quite clear from what the Premier’s have said in Queensland and New South Wales. Minister, is this fair? To go around the Constitution to appropriate someone’s property rights? As citizens, Australian citizens, property right?

Well look–

[Chair] All right, that’s asking a matter of opinion.

[Malcolm Roberts] But the Minister, I’m not asking it of the public service.

Well, you can ask the Minister about government–

[Malcolm Roberts] Is that a fair policy?

[Chair] Well Minister, if you wish to answer that you can.

I mean, you’re asking me to comment on policies going back to, you know, well before my time in politics, in the first instance. In the, in the 1990s. So I might, I might sort of take it as a comment. I understand the concerns you’re raising. There’s obviously a lot of, would’ve been a lot of factors being debated there. And in terms of the constitutional issues you raise, well of course those issues are always a matter for the high court.

[Malcolm Roberts] Given that a few tens of thousands of farmers carried the burden for a whole nation just to comply with arbitrary UN dictates without compensation. And it was done deceptively to get around their constitutional rights as Australian citizens. Is it reasonable–

Senator Roberts, imputation of improper motives is not in line with the standing of this. You should withdraw that and–

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, I’ll withdraw that

and rephrase your question.

[Malcolm Roberts] But it was clearly stated by the Queensland Premier that it was done to enable compliance with the Howard Anderson Government with UN Kyoto Protocol. That was clearly stated. Minister, are you aware that seven years after Prime Minister Howard was removed from office in 2014, in a major address to a global warming policy think tank that opposes the UN’s de industrialization of Western civilization. Prime Minister Howard admitted that on the matter of climate science, he was agnostic. Yet he put in place their renewable energy target. He had the first major party policy on emissions trading schemes or carbon tax. He was the first to introduce that as a policy and he also appropriated or caused the appropriation of farmers’ property rights. And yet he was agnostic on climate science.

I’m not aware of those comments.

[Malcolm Roberts] So he appropriated property from tens of thousands of farmers to achieve our goals under UN dictates. And yet himself was agnostic on the climate science. So what will your government do to restore or compensate farmers for property stolen from them?

Well, look, you’ve made a number of assertions there. It’s difficult for me to– It’s difficult for me to give a, perhaps a useful answer to you without dealing with all of the assertions. And it’s difficult for me to deal with them. So–

[Malcolm Roberts] Happy to have a conversation later.

It, well, indeed, I’m very happy to. But I might, I might take, I think it’s very difficult for me to answer as you’ve made a number of assertions. We could probably spend a lot of time on those. I don’t know how useful it would be. But, I’d probably perhaps take it as a comment.

[Chair] And Senator Roberts I would just say you do have the offer there from the Minister there to engage some other time. You have the Climate Change Authority here before you. So can I encourage you if you have question of them, to put questions to them.

[Malcolm Roberts] Certainly, I will just make the point though that farmers are wanting either restoration of their lawful rights, their constitutional rights, or compensation for that. Thousands of farmers deserve it. Now to the clean energy, to the Climate Change Authority. Your authority’s Toolkit for 2030 rehearsed all the familiar factoids. It shows a graph. I don’t know the title of the graph. But it shows the various– costs of various reductions of emissions and production of carbon dioxide and the costs. And the most prominent, and the entire load is carried by this. The only one that declined significantly is land use, reflecting what I was just talking about with the minister. So. Are you willing to talk about your views on solar energy? Because, let me see, I think it was Arena said that solar energy is now the cheapest form of energy. My understanding is that in Saudi Arabia, that is correct. But when we factor in the fact that we need a certain area of land covered in solar panels. Then you factor in the cloudy days that doubles that area. So it’s now double that cost. When you factor in the nighttime, no sun shines. Not even in Saudi Arabia. That’s triple the area. Then we need the cost of the battery. Solar becomes prohibitively and impossibly expensive. Can you make any comments on that?

Certainly. So Brad Archer, Chief Executive Officer of the Climate Change Authority. Senator, I’m not sure I have a lot to add to the advice that colleagues from other agencies have provided here this evening on that question. We looked to the same reports, analysis and evidence that they do including the International Energy Agency and authorities such as the Australian Energy Market Operator here in Australia. And the analysis and modelling that they put forward clearly shows that renewable energy and in particular, solar is highly cost competitive compared against other new build technologies into the future. And that, that advice looks reasonably compelling.

[Malcolm Roberts] It does look compelling on a per unit basis until we factor in the need for additional solar panels to cover for cloudy days and nighttime and batteries. Then it becomes prohibitively expensive. It becomes a parasitic mal investment.

Senator, the analysis that I’m referring to that I’m aware of includes the costs of firming technologies that are required to ensure that we have a reliable electricity supply while relying predominantly on variable renewable energy technologies.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, the claims of climate change and especially climate alarm are driving this. But we’ve heard of worries tonight from several agencies. Snowy Hydro in particular. But also Minister Taylor was forthright enough to come out a couple of weeks ago and say that he’s very concerned about future prices. He’s very concerned about grid stability, and he’s very concerned about the loss of reliability from our energy sector. And what I’ve seen in the thread going through all these presentations is the use of terms. Firming for example, instead of unreliability or insecurity. The term is firming, sounds lovely. Instead of high price, the term is subsidy or enhancement. Instead of instability, the term is frequency control auxiliary service. A service, an additional cost that doesn’t come with base load power from coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear or hydro. It’s an addition. Instead of blackout, the term is system integrity protection system. Instead of power cuts, the demand, the term is demand management. Sounds wonderful. Instead of unreliables, the term is clean energy. What exactly do you do.

Senator, I’m just not quite sure what your, what your question is that you’d like me to address.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, I’ll take a quote from your authority’s report. Or Toolkit for 2030. Australia’s electricity sector is undergoing a transformation. From all of the things that we took for granted walking in and flipping a switch. Reliability, cheap, the cheapest power in the world. To now amongst the most expensive. We’re undergoing a transformation. Government Australia’s electricity sector is undergoing a transformation. Government support for renewable energy, the emergence of new clean energy technologies. Declining technology costs, and the need to replace an ageing coal fired generation fleet are all playing a part. Then you continue. Currently markets fail to adequately recognise and price climate related risk because of a lack of information and short-termism in investment decision making. However, this is changing quickly as relevant tools become available and financial regulators divert more attention to the issue. What are you doing? What do you do?

Well sir, I think in large part you’ve provided the answer by reading the material that’s in the authority’s report. There are a range of factors that are driving a transformation in electricity sector. Some of those are related to the response to climate change impacts and risks, and others are a result of what’s happening in the market itself and the need to replace ageing generation assets. And I think both the market and the market authorities are recognising that the cheapest way to do that and build the electricity system that we need in the future is with the low cost technologies. And which also have the benefit of being low emissions. So we have a range of institutions that are spending a lot of time working out how to ensure that the electricity system of the future is stable and reliable and affordable. For example, the energy security board is leading work on future market arrangements for the electricity sector. That’s a major piece of work. And there are other institutions in the electricity sector which are also turning their mind to these issues. So, and I think there’s a broad consensus that we have the technologies, and we have the means of achieving an electricity system which does meet those goals.

[Malcolm Roberts] Did you respond to my requests put on notice for the evidence upon which this is all based? The climate evidence?

[Brad Archer] Senator–

[Malcolm Roberts] The reason I ask is I’m not trying to be cheeky or smart. I don’t know because we were flooded with responses late last week, just a few days before Senate estimates. And I don’t know which ones have replied and which ones haven’t, but we asked you for that. Where’s your empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. We wanted the specific location of the evidence the data and the framework for proving that. And we also wanted the specific relationship between carbon dioxide quantities that affect climate temperature, wind, rainfall, etc. So you just mentioned, could you put it on, get me on notice, please. You just mentioned the effects of climate change that are already present and the risks that you foresee. Could you give me that on notice?

Well, I could give you that on notice and I can also attempt to answer that briefly today.

[Chair] Sure, on notice would be fine.

[Malcolm Roberts] Certainly, sure.

[Chair] All right, thank you.

/2 Comments/by

What do we get for the $5.1B on Snowy Hydro?

, ,

Before the government started splashing billions of dollars on renewables, the price of energy was around $40/MWHr. That price has increased more and more since 2015.

Transcript

[Chair] Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair, and thank you all for being here. What is the true costs of Snowy 2.0, including associated transmission linkages and all associated costs required to make it operational and productive?

[Paul Broad] Well, the transmission, as I’ve said many times here, is not part of 2.0. The transmission is to enable the transition to renewables. And the cost of all that transmission is in the hands of others, not in our hands. So I can’t comment on transmission. But Snowy 2.0., as I’ve just said here many times, in nominal dollars, it’s a 5.1. And then attached to that we have a contingency factor of $400 million. And we now can confirm that the environmental costs, the offsets costs are about roughly $100 million.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What is the average annual saving that Snowy 2.0 will enable in the marketplace?

[Paul Broad] Sir, I don’t understand.

[Malcolm Roberts] What was the saving? The economic modelling has found that Snowy 2.0 will provide savings of market benefits of between $4.4 and $6.8 billion and reduced spot prices, leading to lower costs for consumers.

[Paul Broad] Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] What will be the benefit?

[Paul Broad] So, as I said, I think he said it four years ago, what it does is firm up renewables and allows it to compete. And we do so at a price point, at that time I said, some senators were here at the time, we said that we can compete with base load power. And that’s been proven to be true, even with existing Snowy. So the benefits will come is to renewables, lower prices, etc, etc, that stem from 2.0. I emphasise again, you can’t go down the renewables track without significant amounts of deep storage.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s an added cost to renewables.

[Paul Broad] You can’t have renewables without it.

[Malcolm Roberts] Right, so that’s an added cost to renewables.

[Paul Broad] Yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] Do the projected savings take us back to a sustained $40 per megawatt hour price, that prevailed prior to government interventions favouring renewable energy that brought the post-2015 price increases?

[Paul Broad] I can’t comment on that. I can comment that the renewal penetration is significantly pushing downward on prices. Wholesale prices are significantly down, the forward curve is down. But you gotta be able to balance that out. That’s been helped a lot by existing baseline plants being flexed up and down to keep the lights on. So I can’t comment on going back to those days. Those days, where driven by cheap baseline.

[Malcolm Roberts] Driven by cheap baseline? So that’s correct. That’s my understanding too.

[Paul Broad] Mm-hmm.

[Malcolm Roberts] So coming to the Curry Curry project, do you think that private sector participants perceive the risks of such a new plant? My understanding is that the Minister was really keen for private and private sector to take on Curry Plant or provide that what the Curry Plant will be providing. But instead that’s not happening, so the government’s jumping in. So do you think that private sector participants perceive the risk of such a new plant to be excessive, in light of government subsidies, present and planned, to intermittent wind and solar?

[Paul Broad] So EA didn’t. So they’re building. Energy Australia didn’t, so they’re building a plant tolerably. Can I just say, the other one was AGL. They’d be talking about building a plant at Tomago since, I think, 2012. And I don’t believe the – in their interest to build and enable competitors to offer up more competitive products than what they currently supply from their base load power stations. So, I suspect there are wider considerations than just gas plants for AGL. But I can’t, you know, I’m speculating.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, there are many –

[Paul Broad] And for us sorry?

[Malcolm Roberts] So, many complicating factors.

[Paul Broad] Yeah, many. But, for us that, you know, we look on the other side. I mean, when the bush fires happened here, 18 months ago, the tragedy of those fires, only for Colongra – Only for Colongra the lights were a struggle to stay on in New South Wales. And we faced, because of the contract market that Roger was describing, we looked at losing somewhere in the order of $150 million because we were on the wrong side of the contracts. Colongra came on, we lost, I think, $30 odd million in an hour and a half, which is the risk to business. We are in a risky business, eh? So you gotta take the losses at times. So, you gotta be able to have faster firming generation to enable this transition to happen. That’s just what’s happening now, it’s happening in Queensland right now. Queensland have 400,000 properties without power. There’s a hospital in Queensland on emergency diesel. Right now. This is real. And they’re firing up gas plants. Please, this is serious. This is deadly serious. These are people who are in serious predicaments. And we sit here today. Let me tell you, I spend my life thinking about this. That’s what I do every day. I think about what we can do, to not let that happen.

[Malcolm Roberts] And Mr. Broad, I’ve been thinking about it for decade. I don’t have your level of expertise in the electricity sector, but we knew this time was coming. Based upon policies that Labor and Liberal governments have pushed. Does the decision of Snowy Hydro Limited, to undertake such an investment at Curry Curry, indicate it has a lesser risk aversion than its private sector rivals?

[Paul Broad] No, I don’t think that’s true at all. I think EA has obviously seen that they need to go. I think that as I say, energy has, AGL had other considerations to think about. I can’t comment on origin. I can’t work that out, because they have a wonderful hydro plant just on the edge of the Sydney Basin and the Victoria Falls Hydro Plant. It’s a fabulous plant. So I can’t really look into that, but I don’t think a difference on risk. We manage risk to the enth degree.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, is it because private firms just cannot justify the risk and investment because government has favoured high cost renewables? Or unreliables, as I call them?

[Paul Broad] I don’t think so. No.

[Malcolm Roberts] You don’t think so?

[Paul Broad] I think Energy Australia has proven that –

[Man] Energy Australia has proved positive of that effectively.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry?

[Man] Energy Australia has proved positive of that effectively.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So isn’t Snowy 2.0, coming back to Snowy 2.0.. Oh well, let’s just ask another question on Curry. Isn’t the private sector effectively competing with government subsidised unreliables, especially after Matt Kean in New South Wales, and Lily D’Ambrosio in Victoria recently declared further fostering of unreliables and with transmission lines and guaranteed payments and controls, favouring and protecting unreliables?

[Paul Broad] So, I think the subsidies are flung to the private sector as much as anyone else. I note that Energy Australia got $80 million, I think or there abouts. So I think 50 from New South Wales and some from the Feds. I noticed Twiggy Forrest got $30 million for his proposed LNG plant. I’m sure he needs the $30 million. He got his – He got his $30 million for that. So there was a lot, you know, I don’t think you’ve singled out any one groups in the industry. But the transition is happening. Let’s be clear. The transition is happening. Once the renewables gets and transmission can deliver to market, the firming that needs to be built is massive. It is on a scale that it’s hard to even comprehend.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, we have the Minister himself, the last question, Chair. The Minister himself, Mr. Taylor, has cited Bloomberg’s graph on support of clean energy or unreliable energy, as I’d call it. And Australian, per capita, is investing more. Twice as much as the next major country investing in this unreliables energy. We’re investing double the United States, six times what China is doing. And we’ve already heard from you and Mr. Whitby, what’s happening as this transition occurs, this forced transition, and it’s bringing considerable risk to our whole Electricity Sector. So, I would see Snowy 2.0 itself as an admission of failure because it relies on high peak power rates. It wouldn’t work without that.

[Paul Broad] I think that’s a comment, not a question, sir.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. Thank you, Chair.

/by