Energy Use and Supply         (Part b)

Report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee
The Heat Is On: Australia's Greenhouse Future
Table of Contents

Chapter 5

Energy Use and Supply         (Part b)

(Chapter 5 - Part a)


A Greenhouse Trigger?

5.81 In December 1999 the Government published a discussion paper on the possible inclusion of greenhouse as a trigger for environmental impact assessment under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Public comment was invited and closed in February 2000. There are currently no Government plans to introduce amendments to the EPBC Act to give effect to a greenhouse trigger. [1] The concept of a trigger received much comment during the inquiry, with many witnesses arguing it would provide for oversight of the greenhouse implications of new projects, and others opposing it, arguing that it would unfairly target new projects or could endanger new investment.

5.82 A trigger could potentially apply to a large range of projects and activities, including energy and industrial processes, road construction and land clearing. It is discussed in this chapter because the focus of its discussion during hearings was its application to the energy sector. However, the Committee acknowledges its potential use across the entire range of emitting activities.

5.83 Currently, under the EPBC Act, there are six matters of national environmental significance which could trigger environmental impact assessment: world heritage, wetlands of international importance, listed threatened species and communities, listed migratory species, nuclear actions and marine environment. [2]

5.84 The Government's discussion paper canvassed a range of design issues which would govern what kind of activities and projects would be captured for assessment under a greenhouse trigger. These included:

5.85 A number of witnesses said that the trigger was essential to direct investment in new generation and transmissions capacity away from coal. This would be important both to reduce emissions in the short term and enable Australia to better adjust to a greenhouse constrained world. Dr Clive Hamilton argued that:

5.86 The conservation group, Environment Victoria, also emphasised the need to meet long term international commitments:

5.87 Again citing the planned Queensland coal developments, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) argued that the trigger would be in the national interest, given Australia's Kyoto obligations:

5.88 The Australasian Railway Association argued that the trigger should capture investment in transport infrastructure which would have a major impact on emissions:

5.89 Industry representatives of large carbon emitters and electricity dependent industries were strongly opposed to the trigger, feeling that it would unfairly target new projects or could endanger new investment. For example, the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network commented that:

5.90 The Business Council of Australia (BCA) echoed this concern, saying that: `our response to international climate change obligations must be managed well and in an holistic and strategic manner, not on an ad hoc project by project basis targeting a limited range of projects and with differential coverage of sectors and emissions growth'. In their view the trigger would not be an `appropriate or cost-effective approach':

5.91 The BCA was also strongly opposed to the use of a trigger by the Commonwealth to intervene to prevent the construction of new coal-fired power stations, even if such investment were to put at risk Australia's ability to meet its Kyoto commitments:

5.92 The Committee agrees with the BCA that there needs to be a nationally co-ordinated approach to greenhouse policy. However, the Committee does not agree with the BCA that the Commonwealth has no legitimate role in setting policy directions on Australia's energy mix. Indeed, it is the Commonwealth which has the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that Australia meets its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

5.93 The Committee further notes that if Australia has to buy emissions permits from overseas to meet its Kyoto targets, it will be taxpayers, not the responsible polluters, who will be paying for them. [11]

5.94 The ACF suggested that the current absence of a trigger was reinforcing distortions in a market which, sooner or later, will have to adjust to a greenhouse constrained economy. The current market, which did not provide the appropriate signals to new investors, was unfairly advantaging irresponsible investment over investment in less emissions-intensive alternatives:

5.95 The NSW Government had a different concern with the trigger, in terms of its policy effectiveness in reducing emissions:

5.96 The Committee agrees that an emissions trading system provides an effective least-cost approach to emissions reduction across a range of sectors. However, it raises very complex design and implementation issues, which may not be resolved in the short term. In order to ensure that Australia has a reasonable chance of meeting its international obligations, it will be necessary for the Commonwealth to introduce other measures in the meantime. Although investors should be planning for the likely introduction of emissions trading, this has made little or no impact on recent decisions for investment in new coal-fired power stations in Queensland. Other measures are required to divert these investments into more sustainable alternatives such as gas.

5.97 Woodside Energy, while ambivalent about the trigger, asked that clear principles for the assessment of projects under greenhouse be established at the same time:

5.98 Their concerns were echoed by Pacific Power, which is otherwise supportive of the trigger:

5.99 The Committee concurs with the views of Pacific Power and Woodside in this regard, and agrees that is important for the Government to set out clear principles and policy intentions for the environmental impact assessment of projects under greenhouse. These would have the added benefit of ensuring that greenhouse issues are incorporated into project designs well before an EIS needs to be prepared, and improve investment certainty.

5.100 For example, it may be useful to establish principles that proscribe new electricity investments that will increase the overall greenhouse intensity of generation, or to set out policy objectives that will proscribe new or added capacity investments in coal-fired power, or mandate an emissions coefficient or a renewable component for new generation. Assessment of new road infrastructure projects may be guided by a policy of diverting travellers into more sustainable systems such as rail. International best practice could guide the assessment of available technology.

5.101 The Committee notes the views of those who believe that a trigger would be an ad hoc and limited policy response to the problem of greenhouse. A comprehensive approach is obviously desirable. The AGO acknowledges that it is one potential tool of many, but emphasises that it has an important place as part of a comprehensive approach:

5.102 While it is necessarily a selective response, there is nothing about the trigger which would be inequitable. It is arguable that a trigger would prevent the cost of irresponsible investment decisions from being unfairly passed to the community and the environment in later years. A trigger would also supply the Government with a more targeted and potentially more effective tool than a (nominally more comprehensive) policy such as emissions trading. Emissions trading would rely on indirect price and cost incentives which may be blunted by other market complexities. In the Committee's view, there is an important place for a trigger in combination with more comprehensive programs and policies.

5.103 The Committee does not support the argument that a trigger should be delayed until more comprehensive policies can be put in place. With more than 2000MW of investment planned for new coal-fired power generation, and escalating national emissions from the electricity sector, there is a strong argument for the immediate introduction of a regulatory tool to assess new investment with greenhouse impacts.

5.104 The Committee supports the insertion of a greenhouse trigger in the EPBC Act, which would mean that large new energy projects would be subject to either state or Commonwealth environmental impact assessment. The Committee recommends that the trigger be designed so as to capture large transmission augmentation projects such as Basslink which could have a substantial impact on emissions from the electricity sector. Whether or not such projects would be included in the trigger is currently unclear. [17]

Recommendation 33

The Committee recommends the immediate introduction of amending legislation that will designate greenhouse gas emissions as matters of national environmental significance under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and that it be designed so as to incorporate new projects, capacity expansions and recommissioned plant that would produce large amounts of new emissions sources.

Recommendation 34

The Committee recommends the proposed addition of a greenhouse trigger to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 be designed to ensure that transmission augmentation projects which will have a significant impact on electricity emissions will be subject to environmental impact assessment.

Recommendation 35

The Committee recommends that the introduction of a greenhouse trigger be accompanied by the announcement of general principles or other policy objectives that will guide the assessment of new projects.

Basslink

5.105 A significant issue raised during the inquiry was the greenhouse implications of the proposed new cable linking Tasmania and Victoria, known as `Basslink'. Basslink will be a 400MW high voltage direct current cable, and has been under consideration since 1990. In 1999 the Tasmanian Government selected four consortia to bid for the rights to develop the project, which was awarded to the National Grid Company in February 2000. The Tasmanian Government requires Basslink to begin commercial operation by 30 December 2002. [18]

5.106 The greenhouse implications of Basslink hinge on the direction of the flow of electricity: if the flow is predominantly north from Tasmania to Victoria, and is thus able to displace brown coal generation with hydro, it will beneficial in greenhouse terms. However, it large amounts of high emissions brown coal-fired power flows south, it could lead to a further increase in the average emissions intensity of power generation at a time when it is already dangerously high. There was considerable disagreement among witnesses as to its overall effect.

5.107 McLennan Maganasik (MMA), in a report to the AGO, suggested that there could be significant flows south:

5.108 The Committee notes that these comments suggest these flows could be balanced or exceeded by northward flows of renewable power. [20] However, there is considerable uncertainty about how this balance would be achieved in practice and about its overall greenhouse implications.

5.109 The owner/operator of the Breamlea Wind Generator in Victoria, Dr Michael Gunter, suggested that the net flow would in fact be south:

5.110 Dr Gunter explained this result in terms of market forces in the deregulated NEM, which made brown coal price competitive, also because Tasmania may not have enough hydro capacity:

5.111 Professor John Todd, from the Centre for Environmental Studies at the University of Tasmania, suggested that rainfall and water reserves were indeed a concern in Tasmania:

5.112 However, Professor Todd cautiously supported Basslink as greenhouse positive:

5.113 Professor Todd did qualify his optimism with a concern that a smaller than anticipated flow would create pressures to sell electricity south:

5.114 The Tasmanian Hydro Electric Corporation (Hydro Tasmania) strongly argued for Basslink to proceed. It argued that the net greenhouse benefit would be substantial given the legislation of the Commonwealth's 2 per cent target for renewable energy, which would increase the mainland market for Tasmanian hydro and potential new windpower developments:

5.115 Hydro Tasmania emphasised that without Basslink, new wind development would be much slower, with or without the 2 per cent renewable energy measure:

5.116 The Committee agrees that every effort should be made to encourage the development of wind generation, however, concern has been raised that current transmission pricing under the NEM distorts the economics of Basslink and with the NEM reforms outlined in the NGS, the viability of the project would be questionable. Any decision to proceed with Basslink should take into account the impact of the NEM reforms agreed to by Australian governments under the NGS.

5.117 However, substantial uncertainty about Basslink's net greenhouse benefit remains. In the Committee's view, this underlines the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the greenhouse implications before the link proceeds. Dr Gunter endorsed this need:

Recommendation 36

The Committee recommends that a full evaluation be made of the long term greenhouse emission impacts of the Basslink project.

Recommendation 37

The Committee recommends that any decision to proceed with Basslink take into account the impact of the NEM reforms agreed to by the Australian governments under the National Greenhouse Strategy.

Energy Efficiency and Demand Management

5.118 The Committee heard from a number of witnesses that energy efficiency measures provided an enormous untapped potential for low cost greenhouse abatement, and to dramatically reduce energy emissions. At the same time, the Committee also heard that current energy markets were a disincentive to energy efficiency.

5.119 Professor Hugh Outhred told the Committee that, in addition to the negative impacts of reform, electricity consumption was rising both in raw terms and on a per-capita basis:

5.120 The Committee was told that such trends cause difficulties in encouraging electricity users to moderate their demand. ESAA's Managing Director, Mr Keith Orchison, remarked that:

5.121 ESAA also stated that gains in end use efficiency in Australia over the past 10 years were about half the OECD average, and that there needed to be much greater effort to achieve efficiencies in motor vehicles, appliances, plant and equipment, and industrial, commerical and residential buildings. [31]

The Abatement Potential of Energy Efficiency

5.122 A one sixth reduction in consumption indicates enormous potential - a potential saving of up to 27 Mt per year (using the 1998 electricity emissions figure). Newcastle City Council, which has developed energy efficiency programs for local councils, also suggested that large scale energy efficiencies were possible. They informed the Committee of substantial savings they themselves had made:

5.123 They thought that their experience could easily be replicated across Australia, with dramatic results:

5.124 Newcastle City Council was also actively involved in broader energy efficiency programs, including:

5.125 The Council is also involved in the Cities for Climate Protection Program™, but was concerned that there was too much competition for funds:

5.126 The former Chief Executive of SEDA and adviser to the Clinton Administration, Cathy Zoi, agreed that there was much untapped potential for energy efficiency in Australia, but stressed that appliance standards were still wanting:

5.127 The Committee notes that much of the building efficiencies described by Newcastle City Council have been typical of `no regrets' measures, in that a reasonable capital investment has been rewarded in time by cheaper energy bills. The task here may be to further promote and publicise the potential for energy efficiency, and to develop skills and firms that can advise on energy efficiency strategies and choices. Two Canberra-based architects, Laurie Virr and Paul Hanley, put the view that `learning about energy efficiency should be as necessary in our society as the capability to swim, ride a bicycle, drive an automobile or operate an automatic teller machine'. [37]

5.128 SEDA claims great success for its energy efficiency initiatives, saving NSW companies $50 million, NSW government agencies $30 million, and householders $20 million over the next 10 years. It also claims to have reduced greenhouse emissions by 300,000 tonnes CO2-e per annum as a result of its energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. [38]

5.129 The sustainable energy consultant, Mr Alan Pears, told the Committee that the greenhouse abatement achieved by energy efficiency was not merely low cost, but produced net financial benefits:

5.130 This was echoed by the Australia Institute:

5.131 The ACRE Energy Policy Group and the Australian CRC for Renewable Energy also argued that local government building and energy regulations needed greater coordination to be more effective and consistent:

5.132 ACRE told the Committee that they had recommended to the Commonwealth to create `a pool of energy officers that local governments can call on for the expertise that they do not have in house. Otherwise, they do not deal with it. It is just a whole new area that they have not thought of before'. [42]

Energy Efficiency in Buildings

5.133 Mr Laurie Virr and Mr Paul Hanley also argued that home and building energy rating ratings systems were currently inadequate. Their submission was very critical of design and implementation of the ACT's energy rating scheme, which, as the only state or territory in which it was mandatory, was supposed to be a testing ground for a national system. They argue that: `The House Energy Rating Scheme is a concept that originated from the very best of intentions… . The assessment criteria, however, were hurriedly determined, predominantly subjective, and in some cases in serious error'. [43]

5.134 Mr Virr and Mr Hanley are strong advocates of passive solar houses and policies, such as that pursued by Leichhardt Council in Sydney, which mandate solar hot water systems in new housing construction or major renovations. However, they argued that the ACT system was hostile to recognising solar hot water as a measure of efficiency, and said that the scheme:

5.135 The ACT Government, through its Planning and Land Management Group (PALM), provided the Committee with a response to these criticisms. They assert that the ACT's energy guidelines will result in `subdivisions, residential construction and commercial buildings which perform in an energy-efficient manner'. They told the Committee that they were developing guidelines for subdivisions, residential buildings and commercial buildings, with the subdivisions being the first `in the operational policy phase to ensure that developers observe specific rules which result in solar access, setbacks, frontages, slope consideration, building envelope optimisation and plot development capabilities considered to be among the best in Australia'. [45]

5.136 In relation to specific criticisms of Mr Virr and Mr Hanley, the ACT submitted that:

5.137 The Sustainable Energy Industry Association (SEIA) was concerned that policies such as emissions trading alone would not provide a spur to energy efficiency, whether in buildings, motor vehicles or appliances. They have proposed a `reverse carbon tax' in the form of `emissions reduction credits' in the form of one-off rebates for appliances and systems which can demonstrate life-cycle emissions savings. [47] This scheme is discussed in more detail in chapter 9.

Government energy efficiency programs

5.138 Energy Efficiency is a priority in the Commonwealth's NGS. Existing measures include:

5.139 The NGS also listed a range of additional measures under development:

5.140 Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS), established under the national Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Program, have great potential to contribute substantial greenhouse abatement at negative cost. An AGO overview of measures regarding industrial equipment, electric motors, lighting, commercial refrigeration and airconditioning and household appliances suggests that average annual reductions of 7.2 MT CO2-e could be achieved during the first Kyoto commitment period at a price of -A$31 per tonne of CO2-e. Despite this, many Australian MEPS are below world's best practice (such as those for household appliances, which are around 30 per cent less stringent than those in the US). [50]

5.141 A 1999 discussion paper also spoke of problems in the pace and scope of implementation:

5.142 The discussion paper argues for a legislative goal of matching world's best practice MEPS and a timetable for implementation of within three to five years, in order to provide certainty and allow industry notice of new standards. However, they also suggest that in the absence of consensus lower than world's best practice MEPS should be used. [52]

5.143 In Australia, the MEPS levels for refrigerators and hot water systems commenced operation on 1 October 1999. Since then, there has been no indication of any move to tighten the level of standard introduced, although discussion about increasing the scope of MEPS has taken place. Governments and industry have agreed to begin working towards imposing MEPS on a range of additional commercial and industrial equipment. Labelling allows consumers to assess the energy efficiency of appliances. This encourages a competitive appliance market, where purchasers are able to consider whole-of-life costs for the appliance, not just the purchase price.

5.144 The AGO has adopted two different approaches to appliance labelling. The Energy Rating Program for whitegoods is a mandatory scheme, while the Energy Star scheme is a voluntary scheme run in cooperation with industry, originating in the US. Energy Star currently applies to office equipment including computers, printers, fax machines and photocopiers. [53] There appears to be no clear rationale to explain why one program is mandatory and the other is voluntary.

5.145 Energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings is addressed by the Commonwealth Building Energy Efficiency Strategy. Following consultation with the building industry, the Ministerial Council on Greenhouse reached an agreement on 24 March 1999, on a comprehensive strategy aimed to make homes and commercial buildings in Australia more energy-efficient. The two-pronged Strategy balances the introduction of mandatory minimum energy performance requirements through the Building Code of Australia together with encouraging and supporting voluntary best practice initiatives. However, the Committee is concerned that the implementation of such standards is very slow and that voluntary approaches may not be working.

5.146 A strategy exists for expanding the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme by including a minimum energy performance requirement for new houses and major extensions, working with the states, territories and industry to develop voluntary minimum energy performance standards for new and substantially refurbished commercial buildings.

5.147 The Australian Building Energy Council (ABEC) has been formed to develop and introduce a voluntary code of practice for energy performance standards in the construction industry to be directed toward commercial and industrial buildings. In 1997 the Prime Minister said that if, after 12 months, the Government assesses that the voluntary approach is not achieving acceptable progress towards higher standards of energy efficiency for housing and commercial buildings, it will work with the states and territories and industry to implement mandatory standards through amendment of the Building Code of Australia. [54]

5.148 Mr Philip Harrington, from the AGO, indicated that progress on the building code was slow and that it still had not been amended. He thus indirectly acknowledged that the voluntary approach was not effective:

5.149 The Commonwealth Government has also put in place a program of Energy Efficiency Improvement in Commonwealth Operations with a target to reduce energy in Commonwealth occupied buildings by 25 per cent by 2003. One aim of the Program is to establish leadership in the community by example through the reduction of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

5.150 At a broader level than the buildings and appliances industries, the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Program (EEBPP) aims to stimulate energy-efficient good practice in industry leading over time to best practice. Within particular industry sectors the Program will:

5.151 The Committee is concerned that the EEBPP may overlap with the AGO's Greenhouse Challenge Program whose agreements are designed to capture the capacity of industry to abate its greenhouse emissions, mainly by improving its efficiency in energy use and processing. It suggests that this issue be addressed in the overall review of the NGS.

5.152 The Committee recognises that achieving energy efficiency requires a diverse range of policy responses across a range of contexts - buildings and households, appliances, motor vehicles - and from a range of actors: business, consumers and all levels of government. On the other hand, as a nation we need to recognise the tremendous low (and often negative cost) abatement opportunities offered by energy efficiency measures.

Recommendation 38

The Committee recommends that Australian governments streamline and coordinate their processes for developing and implementing world's best practice energy efficiency standards for products, manufacturing processes and building design, with a view to the earliest possible adoption of world's best practice standards.

Recommendation 39

The Committee recommends that Australian governments at all levels expand awareness programs for consumers, business and industry and encourage the development of expertise in energy efficiency solutions and programs.

Recommendation 40

The Committee recommends that the inclusion of energy efficiency and greenhouse considerations into the Building Code of Australia be given priority for implementation.

The Energy Cycle - Possibilities

5.153 The Committee was also told of research into how different patterns of economic activity, and consumption, affect the energy intensity of the economy as a whole. Researchers from the Physics Department at the University of Sydney stressed that Australia had the highest per capita emissions in the world, but suggested that shifting the proportion of GDP to less energy-intensive industries could produce good results without affecting overall levels of employment.

5.154 They used economic models to compare the emissions intensity of various economic outputs, with the following results:

5.155 Focusing on the much lower energy intensity of service industries, they speculated that, because labour-intensive industries were less energy intensive, energy could be traded off for labour:

5.156 Other options to reduce emissions included changes in diet and the use of repairs to existing appliances rather than buying new ones. Repairing appliances can reduce emissions by 20 per cent while increasing employment by 35 per cent, and changes in diet could have similar emissions impacts:

(Chapter 5 - Part c)

 

Footnotes

[1] Mr Mark Tucker, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 9 March 2000, p 19.

[2] Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, No 91, 99, p i.

[3] Possible Application of a Greenhouse Trigger under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Consultation Paper, Department of Environment and Heritage, December 1999.

[4] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 March 2000, p 62.

[5] Ms Esther Abram, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 20 March 2000, p 168.

[6] Mr John Connor, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 21 March 2000, p 197.

[7] Mr John Kirk, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 20 March 2000, p 142.

[8] Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 20 March 2000, p 142.

[9] Mr David Buckingham, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 21 March 2000, p 176.

[10] Mr David Buckingham, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 21 March 2000, pp 177-78.

[11] Dr Clive Hamilton, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 March 2000, p 58.

[12] Mr Don Henry, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 21 March 2000, p 197.

[13] Mr Peter Stevens, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, p 280.

[14] Mr Steven Waller, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 17 April 2000, p 490.

[15] Mr Paul Flanagan, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, p 365.

[16] Ms Gwen Andrews, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 June 2000, p 727.

[17] See Possible Application of a Greenhouse Trigger under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Consultation Paper, Department of Environment and Heritage, December 1999.

[18] McLennan Maganasik Associates, Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections: Australian Electricity Generation and Natural Gas Combustion, Report to Australian Greenhouse Office, 5 June 2000, p 19.

[19] McLennan Maganasik Associates, Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections: Australian Electricity Generation and Natural Gas Combustion, Report to Australian Greenhouse Office, 5 June 2000, p 19.

[20] McLennan Maganasik Associates, Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections: Australian Electricity Generation and Natural Gas Combustion, Report to Australian Greenhouse Office, 5 June 2000, p 19.

[21] Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 21 March 2000, p 260.

[22] Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 21 March 2000, p 262.

[23] Proof Committee Hansard, Hobart, 5 May 2000, p 479.

[24] Proof Committee Hansard, Hobart, 5 May 2000, p 482.

[25] Proof Committee Hansard, Hobart, 5 May 2000, p 482.

[26] Mr Geoffrey Willis, Proof Committee Hansard, Hobart, 5 May 2000, p 503.

[27] Mr Geoffrey Willis, Proof Committee Hansard, Hobart, 5 May 2000, p 505.

[28] Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 21 March 2000, p 261.

[29] Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 17 April 2000, p 495.

[30] Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, p 336.

[31] Electricity Supply Association of Australia, Submission 83, p 635.

[32] Mr Peter Dormand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, p 286.

[33] Mr Peter Dormand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, p 286.

[34] Mr Peter Dormand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, pp 285-90.

[35] Mr Peter Dormand, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, p 289.

[36] Ms Cathy Zoi, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, p 300.

[37] Laurie Virr and Paul Hanley, Submission 199, p 1014.

[38] Mr Chris Dunstan, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, pp 268-9.

[39] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 16 August 2000, p 900.

[40] Dr Clive Hamilton, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 16 August 2000, p 898.

[41] Dr Muriel Watt, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 23 March 2000, p 415.

[42] Dr Muriel Watt, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 23 March 2000, p 415.

[43] Laurie Virr and Paul Hanley, Submission 199, p 1017.

[44] Laurie Virr and Paul Hanley, Submission 199, p 1022.

[45] Comments by Planning and Land Management Group (PALM), ACT Department of Urban Services in response to Submission No. 119 on Friday 10 March 2000 by Messrs Paul Hanley and Laurie Virr in private capacity.

[46] Comments by Planning and Land Management Group (PALM), ACT Department of Urban Services in response to Submission No. 119 on Friday 10 March 2000 by Messrs Paul Hanley and Laurie Virr in private capacity.

[47] Alan Pears, Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 21 March 2000, p 229; and Alan Pears, Proposal: rebate scheme for sustainable energy systems/services that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Sustainable Energy Industry Association, Revised Jan 2000.

[48] Australian Greenhouse Office, The National Greenhouse Strategy: Strategic Framework for Advancing Australia's Greenhouse Response, 1998, pp 47-48.

[49] Australian Greenhouse Office, The National Greenhouse Strategy: Strategic Framework for Advancing Australia's Greenhouse Response, 1998, pp 49-50.

[50] The Australian Greenhouse Office, National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Program: Projected Combined Impacts from an Extended and Enhanced Program, March 2000.

[51] Future Directions for Australia's Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Program, A discussion paper prepared by the National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee, February 1999, p 19.

[52] Future Directions for Australia's Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Program, A discussion paper prepared by the National Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee, February 1999, pp 19-20.

[53] greenhouse.gov.au/energyefficiency/appliances/labelling/index.html (07/08/00)

[54] Statement by the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon John Howard, Safeguarding the Future: Australia's response to climate change, 20 November 1997, http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ago/safeguarding.html (17/07/00).

[55] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 22 June 2000, p 700.

[56] http://www.isr.gov.au/resources/netenergy/domestic/bpp/index.html (12/09/00).

[57] Dr Christopher Dey, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 March 2000, p 427.

[58] Dr Christopher Dey, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 March 2000, p 427.

[59] Dr Christopher Dey, Proof Committee Hansard, 23 March 2000, p 427.