From: Lane [horseplay@netspace.net.au] Sent: Thursday, 10 October 2002 11:33 PM To: ERCA, Committee (SEN) Cc: colin McAllan; cohenbor; adam beeson; charles uber; annabel; liz smith Subject: SUBMISSION TO INQUIRY INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY BILL To : The Secretary Senate ECITA References Committee Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 ecita.sen@aph.gov.au Re: Inquiry into The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 Dear Secretary Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission to the above inquiry. I am making this submission on behalf of the Basslink Concerned Citizens Coalition, Gormandale, Victoria. Basslink Concerned Citizens is an Incorporated body, A0041310A, and our postal address for correspondence is P.O. Box 1, Gormandale, 3873. We meet weekly at the Community House in Gormandale, Victoria. Basslink Concerned Citizens is a community group who has evaluated the Basslink Project from all angles and concluded that it is on balance not a worthwhile project, especially for Victorians. We are aware that you will receive many expert submissions from players in the energy industry. We feel it is vital that you receive submissions from grassroots community groups like ours. When the problems and scams of the MRET scheme are clear even to lay people, the need for reform and restoration of honesty and integrity to the Renewable Energy Act 2000 becomes paramount. We request that you make sure that the trust of the public, (that the Act is attempting to ensure a net reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by investment in new renewable power generation), is not betrayed. One of the worst aspects of Basslink is the scam that HydroTasmania will be operating in claiming Government money under the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets (MRET) scheme. We have been appalled to discover that Hydro Tasmania will be gaining money from Renewable Energy Certificates for its old existing infrastructure. This MRET scheme money is supposed to be used to encourage new, additional investment in renewable energy power projects like wind farms and solar power generation. This should be aimed to offset / reduce the net need for coal-burning electricity generation (dirty / brown power). The proposed Renewable Energy Certificates currently under consideration by the Howard Government require that electricity retailers will need to purchase Renewable Energy Certificates from green power generators to meet new Government targets (MRETs) for reducing total greenhouse emissions. Current totals for present-day Australian emissions of greenhouse gases already take account of existing Tasmanian Hydro and other Hydro / green power (eg the Snowy Scheme). The Tasmanian Hydro power output will not increase with Basslink, but merely change from baseload operation to peak load operation. The greenhouse gas situation will if anything deteriorate as 13% of the Tasmanian Hydro output will now be lost in transmission over the long haul Basslink cable (330 kilometres of DC cable). If Basslink proceeds, and you fail to correct the dishonest accounting allowing payments under MRET to Tasmania Hydro for its old infrastructure and output, the Tasmanian Hydro will reportedly get $35 million dollars a year in Renewable Energy Certificates without any new, net increased production of green power. For every MegaWatt of hydro power exported to Victoria, an equal amount of brown coal generated power plus extra to cover transmission losses, will be imported to Tasmania. Only the pattern of usage will change, not the net output of Hydro power. And this is old, pre-existing infrastructure, making no new inroads to Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions. It is also argued by our group that the aim of Basslink is to expand the total electricity market in Victoria by pandering to the huge, unchecked growth in demand for airconditioning on hot days. An expansion in the total electricity market is a backwards step in reducing Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions. Basslink will allow Governments such as Victoria, to ignore for a little longer, the need to reduce demand for air conditioning by changing building design towards energy efficient architecture. This incorrect payment of MRET monies to Hydro Tasmania is a scam and basically amounts to a subsidy to Tasmania to spend taxpayers money on the Basslink Project. This is not free market behaviour. This is not honest or fair to other would-be new players in the renewable power generation industry. The intention of Renewable Energy Certificates, as we understand it, is to encourage investment in new renewable energy generation. Renewable Energy Certificates or any form of MRET money, should only be issued to new, additional investment in green power generation where total greenhouse gas emissions will actually be reduced by increased displacement of the burning of fossil fuels. Basslink seeks to exploit loopholes in the flawed regulations for Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets. If any Government wants new jobs and new investment in renewable energy, it must not approve the MRET scheme as it is currently mooted. The scam of the new Mandatory Renewable Energy Target regulations will represent over $1 billion in lost investment and a loss of 400 to 500 direct sustainable jobs. These are jobs that could have been created if the funding was not fraudulently diverted to the old Tasmanian Hydro infrastructure. Basslink will put a two-way squeeze on the development of new renewable electricity generation in Victoria. Firstly, the old hydro-electricity from Tasmania will unfairly compete against new renewable electricity in the market place. Secondly, so long as the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) loopholes remain, it will drain financial support from the renewable energy generating sector. Fewer wind farms and solar facilities are likely to be built if the flaws in the MRET regulations remain. For every dollar claimed by the Tasmanian hydro industry there is one less dollar available for new wind and solar investment in Victoria or anywhere. The flawed MRET scheme will cause the loss of the equivalent of 1100 MW (or whatever the exact total output Hydro Tasmania produces) of new wind and other renewable generation. There is a second terrible mistake in the Renewable Energy Act 2000. The Act, if approved unchanged, will bring Australians their first, unwanted, experience of power generated by the burning of native forest woodchips. As some sort of sick joke, the burning of native forest wood is to be classified as "green" or "renewable" power generation. Some burning of waste biomass may arguably have some element of renewability. This could never be possible when considering the burning of native forests. It is hard to see how the huge output of greenhouse gases (from burning wood, car tyres, bagasse, dead cats etc) could ever be a net gain for greenhouse emissions. Wood burning puts out five times as much greenhouse gases as burning coal. We leave those calculations to you but remind you that the public expects honesty from Government and its administration. In Tasmania, the Southwood Project developed by Forestry Tasmania incorporates a 30 or 50 (depending on what document you read) Megawatt power station. The electricity will be generated by the burning of 300,000 tonnes of native forest woodchips per year. The Planning permit has already been issued by Huon Council for the Judbury Woodchip Park. These woodchips will be burnt to generate power to sell into the mainland electricity grid via the Basslink Project. This power is deceptively labelled as "green power" and the public could be fooled into thinking that Basslink will supply wind and hydro power only. The Southwood project permit grants access to 164,000 hectares of old growth native forest to log for woodchips for its power plant. This is 47.5% of its total allocation of 344,500 hectares of forest for logging. Old growth forest is in no sense renewable. Once clearfelled for woodchips, these old growth forests will be lost forever at enormous cost to future generations of Australians. This will apply no matter what State generates power in this way from old growth forests. Unfortunately wood-fired power plants are cheap, (much cheaper than wind farms and solar panels) and more will be built in future if the Renewable Energy Act continues to classify burning native forests as a form of renewable power generation. This must not be allowed to continue. The burning of native forest woodchips from publicly owned forests must be removed from the definition of "renewable" or "green" power generation. There must be no possibility of old growth forests being harvested for "renewable" energy generation. yours sincerely Madelon Lane BASSLINK CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION, ( my home address is 2265 Hyland Hwy, Carrajung Lower, 3844, 03 51 942 201)