SYDNEY, July 31, 2018 – Greenpeace has filed Freedom of Information requests in a bid to see the economic modelling that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg have used to justify the National Energy Guarantee (NEG), but that they have refused to release, despite calls from industry experts.Greenpeace has lodged the requests with the Department of Environment and Energy, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and with the office of the Environment and Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg.
“Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg are using this information to legitimise their support of the NEG, but for reasons unknown they won’t make it public,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific Head of Research and Investigations, Nikola Casule, said.
“If the data was robust they would have nothing to lose from it being in the public realm. In fact, it would bolster their case. Their failure to even entertain the idea of releasing the data suggests to me there is something in there that they don’t want the public to see.”
The Federal Government claims the NEG will reduce household power bills by $150 a year; however, it has repeatedly failed to expand on the claim and has steadfastly refused to release the data that led it to that conclusion. [1]
The claim is contradicted by independent modelling by Reputex, which shows the NEG will actually increase power prices, compared with a more ambitious 45 percent target.
The proactive suppression of this key information has led to 23 energy researchers, including Professor Bruce Mountain, Dr Hugh Saddler and Simon Holmes à Court, publishing an open letter, calling for the full release of the NEG modelling undertaken for the Energy Security Board (ESB), so the states can make an informed decision on the NEG. [2]
“The Energy Security Board’s Final Decision Paper refers to an ACIL Allen study which purports to validate the NEG design. The paper provides insufficient detail on the assumptions, methodology and results of the study and indeed it is difficult to reconcile the claims with our own understanding of energy market dynamics and the Australian Energy Markets Operator’s Integrated System Plan,” the letter reads.
Greenpeace has previously warned that many of the assumptions that the ESB’s design is based on are self-evidently flawed. The modelling, by ACIL Allen, of a baseline scenario (i.e. without the NEG in place), assumes:
- All existing state government renewables targets will be removed
- The cost of wind and solar in 2020 will be twice as much as current contracted prices (when in fact renewable energy prices are going down all the time)
- The total amount of additional intermittent renewable energy capacity to be built between 2020 and 2030 without the NEG will be less than the amount of rooftop solar alone in just the first five months of this year
“It’s all very suspicious and that is particularly alarming when we are talking about a policy that will affect every single Australian over the coming decade,” Dr Casule said.
“Surely, Daniel Andrews and Annastacia Palaszczuk can’t commit their states to a policy based on modelling that the government even allow the public to see. We have no idea what they are actually signing up to. They would be fools to kill thriving renewable energy industries for a magic beans promise of slightly lower power prices, when all credible data suggests just the opposite, that the NEG will actually drive power prices up.”
Notes:
To read the Reputex report:
www.greenpeace.org.au/research/neg-report
For interviews:
Greenpeace Australia Pacific Communications Campaigner, Martin Zavan
[email protected]
0424 295 422
