Inconvenient accounting for State renewables ambitions

Announcing new and increased renewable energy targets (RETs) has become a popular state and territory political pastime. 

A stocktake of these fast-breeding renewables rabbits is as follows(renewables as a % of total electricity power generation):

National RET:  23.5% by 2020.

• NSW ‘RET’: state-wide, ‘zero net emissions’ by 2050 (ie, a target covering more than electricity).
• Victorian RET:  25% by 2020 and 40% by 2025 (and ‘zero net emissions’ by 2050?).
• Queensland RET:  50% by 2030.
• WA RET:  23.5% by 2020 (ie, the national RET).
• SA RET:  50% by 2025 (now updated by the caretaker SA Government to 75% by 2025, plus a 25% renewables storage target).
• Tasmanian RET:  100% by 2022.
• ACT RET:  100% by 2020.
• NT RET:  50% by 2030.

Some targets are legislated (eg, the national target and Victoria’s).  Others (eg, Queensland, South Australia, the ACT) are ‘aspirational’.  The national RET is not supported by all political parties.  Others aren’t either.  I think this stocktake is up to date.

Sorry to be boring, but how do we consistently account for these different RETs, and performance towards them?

Globally, those pushing for emissions reductions are mainly fixated on a national emissions production accounting framework.  We too.

I’ve argued since 2008 this is a policy approach sowing the seeds of its own destruction.  It’s a policy own-goal.  Anyway …

Will we follow this production-based accounting framework for state and territory emissions endeavours?  Doesn’t seem likely.

Our most ambitious territory, the ACT, trumpets 100% renewables by 2020.  Its Government says achievement requires renewables imports from other states (probably lots).  A large proportion of ACT power consumption will be imports of renewables production from elsewhere.  Under production accounting, ACT imports should count towards increased renewables production in the states exporting them to the ACT, not ACT production. 

Clearly, the ACT Government will want to claim these imports towards its own RET.  If it does so, they must be subtracted from the exporting state’s RET (eg, South Australia).   Otherwise we’d be double-counting them, Australia-wide. 

The ‘renewables headline’ state, South Australia, has lots of renewables generation (when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing).  It has literally blown-up roughly-equivalent, cheaper, and more reliable coal-fired power plants.  Under production accounting, it should claim all the credit for its indigenous renewables power generation.  That includes exports to Victoria and, if it happens, to the ACT. 

Victoria can’t claim imports of SA wind power as part of its own RET achievement under production accounting.  But if the ACT does so, why won’t Victoria?  What will SA think?  If the ACT and Victoria claim renewable power imports towards their RETs, how can SA do so as well?  Consistent accounting would preclude double-counting.

What about the brown coal state, Victoria?  Under production accounting, it must accept responsibility for local brown coal power production.  Some (via the Heywood interconnector, etc) is exported to, and consumed by, South Australia to ‘keep the lights on’ when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.  These exports have probably increased since SA blew up its own coal generation plants.  You can bet SA won’t want to include them in its RET measure of ‘green’ virtue.

Similar questions apply to accounting for Tasmanian hydro production and exports via BassLink to Victoria, and imports of Victorian coal power production the other way when enough hydro is not available.

Left to their own political devices, will the states claim renewable power more than once, while fossil fuels are ‘ignored’?  Possibly.

I’ll leave NSW and (at present) Qld alone.  Within the NEM, they just keep the lights on, mainly via coal power, when other power fails.

The national RET is calculated by the Commonwealth Government.  It presumably will use production-based accounting, as supported by it internationally.  Its calculations will be the sum of individual state and territory renewables’ production.  Will these state and territory results be published?  If not, why not?  They will be very interesting.

Could Australia use a state-territory renewables consumption accounting framework?  The ACT would love it, politically.  Victoria might like it, too.  I doubt SA and Tasmania would be enthusiastic.  That would make achievement of their RETs harder, by adding imports of coal power and subtracting exports of renewables from their local renewables production.  Nationally, it’s probably a no-no.

Maybe all this really doesn’t matter.  Each state or territory will spin its own politically self-serving accounting treatment of its own globally-puny efforts.  If these add up to more than our actual national renewables production (still puny by global standards), so what?

Given our 1.3% (and falling) contribution to global emissions, I see that point.  But why should the political optics of this bullshit cost so much for power customers, our international competitiveness, efficient allocation of scarce resources, and, increasingly, for the poorest and most vulnerable people in Australia? 

This is yet another symptom of power failure.