Category: Uncategorized

 You may have heard it has been hot in Queensland over the last couple of days. Yesterday this all came to a head with the market showing some cracks.  

 At a high level, the spot price averaged $1,607/MWh for the day. Prices were less than $300/MW for most of the day when solar generation was high but as we moved to the evening the spot price spiked to between $10,000/MWh to $15,100/MWh for a few hours as coal, gas fired generation and pumped hydro set price.  

Yesterday and again today the market is under pressure on both the supply and demand sides. For the last couple of days, the hot weather has been influencing consumption. The second part of the equation is the supply side. At the start of yesterday Queensland’s largest generator, Kogan Creek was offline as well as Callide B2. All other “baseload” units were online.  

High temperatures and particularly high humidity impact the output from coal and gas fired generation. Coal units generally vacuum unload over the evening peak if they have not been proactively managed by the operators, which AEMO is fully aware of and is built into the contingency. Another issue with Kogan Creek being offline is that it reduces the flow across the QLD to NSW Interconnector (QNI), the result flows from NSW and is generally capped at ~600MW.  

The final issue is the bidding behaviour of participants. The previous days’ bid stack indicated prices would stay below $300/MWh during the daylight hours then jumped to $900/MWh where CleanCos cap price with its Wivenhoe Hydro generator, but once through that price band the spot price jumped to $10,000/MWh then again to $15,100/MWh.  

Adding to the already tight supply balance, the Tarong Power Station Unit 2 tripped at 15:15, returning to service at 18:50. Tarong 2 was ramping up at the time of the trip and from the trip profile, it does not look like a tube leak. From 18:50 the unit ramped up over the next couple of hours and is now running normally. Shell also had plant issues at the 78MW Condamine Power Station, taking the unit offline. Tarong, Millmerian, Stanwell and Gladstone Power Stations also had one or more issues over the evening peak.  

An Intervention Event was triggered as a result of Reliability and Emergency Reserve Trader (RERT) being implemented in Qld. This took effect from 17:00 01/02/22 until 21:30. Intervention pricing took effect from 17:00.  

A Lack of Reserve (LOR3) is still active for today as RERT has not been extended to manage today’s evening peak. If RERT is extended or reinstated today the LOR3 will be cancelled.  

As part of RERT, Powerlink was asking for industry to reduce consumption if safe. Large mines in Queensland have historic agreements with Ergon to reduce consumption and on this occasion, they reduced load as requested.  

In the build-up to the evening peak, the Minister for Energy, Renewables and Hydrogen and Minister for Public Works and Procurement, the Honourable Mick de Brenni made the statement “It is possible that Queensland’s previous record demand of 10,044MW will be exceeded on either today or tomorrow.”  

Queensland’s demand peaked at 16:40 as a result of the demand side management.  

At 21:30 AEMO published a market notice letting the market know that the intervention event had ended and as a result, RERT and Intervention pricing was not continuing.  

So what is ahead for us today?  

• Demand forecast is looking to peak close to 10,000MW today, this is forecast to occur at 17:00.  
• Pre dispatch spot pricing is again forecast to be at $15,100/MWh between 14:00 and 23:00.  
• RERT may be needed again today and AEMO will currently be exploring their options. 

Written by Alex Driscoll Senior Manager Markets, Trading & Advisory

As we all focus on buying STC’s to meet our quarterly liabilities it is interesting to see how the rooftop PV installations have performed this past year. My weekly reports always show that states like Queensland and NSW are pumping loads of unconstrained renewable energy into the NEM but how much?

Australian individuals and businesses installed a record number of rooftop solar panels last year reaching 3GW of new capacity.

Despite Covid 19 slowing economies around the world, the global solar market continues to be strong. Strong overseas demand for solar panels and inverters continues to cause supply chain constraints in Australia.

The latest data shows residential and industrial rooftop systems, which are below the commercial solar size of 100kW, grew by 300MW in December alone.

The growth in the residential and industrial sector is starting to slow with monthly volumes in 2021 not surpassing previous installation records. Last year the rooftop PV market only grew by 10%. The growth may have been higher however, installation dropped in Q3 possibly caused by supply issues or increases in the price of systems. The fourth quarter growth was also lower than the previous year.

Due to the supply chain issues, commercial scale projects have not helped with the cost of the smaller residential and industrial systems. Supply issues have pushed up the cost per kW for all projects.

The largest growth segment in the market was the 75kW to 100kW installations, these are primarily larger companies using their existing roof space to reduce their consumption and claim they are using renewable energy as part of their sustainability targets. Commercial installations grew in all sectors greater than 15kW systems.

NSW continues to grow the quickest installing 85MW in December, with Queensland next with 70MW installed followed by Victoria at 59MW, SA at 27MW, with the remainder of the states and territories adding 12MW.

With rooftop PV systems now accounting for 17GW of installed capacity, 2022 will likely see a growth in the installed capacity at a slower rate due to the impacts of COVID. Supply chain constraints and saturation of the rooftop market as fewer new houses are built, and existing houses are not being fitted with solar.

As part of the rooftop PV installations, STC’s are produced which are then used by liable entities to meet their obligations. STC obligations are linked to the number of STC’s projected to be produced in the following year. As the rooftop PV market grows the liability for obligated entities also grows. In 2022 it is expected large electricity users will be required to procure 22.4% of their consumption in the form of STCs.

The article was written by Alex Driscoll Senior Manager Markets, Trading & Advisory

Whilst some were still tending hangovers from new year celebrations, January 2nd was the start of rallies in a Southwestern oil town of Zhanaozen in Kazakhstan and this unrest soon spread to most major towns and cities across the country.

To understand the country of 19 million and its enormous wealth you need to go back to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 when the country gained its “independence,” I am using the term independence lightly!!

As an oil rich nation (it is estimated it produces 1.6 million barrels of oil per day), a government, despite locationally placed between Russia and China, being one which is firmly in the Russian pocket and for nearly thirty years being run by one man, Nursultan Nazarbayev (a close ally of Vladimir Putin), you imagine significant wealth being distributed to the small population of this huge wealthy country (which is larger than Western Europe), but this is not the case.

Nazarbayev focused on economic reform over democracy. He erected statues of himself all over the country and created a new capital which although originally named Astana (literally translated as “Capital”) was re-named Nur-Sultan after himself until the end of his term when it reverted to Astana. He stood down in 2019, however, continued to hold a significant stronghold over the country as the head of Kazakhstan’s Security Council and “Father of the Nation”.

His successor was President Tokayev. He was a protégé of Nazarbayev and is also close to Putin, however, unlike his peers he doesn’t seem to have any business interest in or outside of Kazakhstan. There are no corruption scandals surrounding him, his diplomatic skills and manners are irrefutable and as a speaker of five languages and a successful diplomatic career, including serving in the USSR embassy in Beijing during the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, he is seen to be a quiet, interim holder of the position until it was assumed Nazarbayev’s daughter takes the reigns. However, he is now, for the first time, able to show his real intentions. This is due to Nazarbayev supposedly fleeing the country following this latest unrest.

The small oil town of Zhanaozen, which has a history of riots, with deadly clashes 10 years ago starting in the town, which led to legislation stating public protests are now illegal without government permits, once again on January 2nd took centre stage for the start of the latest situation.

What started as peaceful protests around the removal of the price cap on liquified petroleum gas (which many Kazakhs converted their vehicles to due to it being a cheaper alternative) was hijacked and has led to many asking if this really is the end of the Nazarbayev era?

The removal of the price cap doubled the price of the fuel overnight and is no doubt driven by the opportunity to re-coup greater value of the fuel abroad, especially in western Europe which is currently suffering from a lack of supply and record high prices.

But soon many others, mainly young, disillusioned Kazakhs who wanted to protest against the mass corruption within the country and the chasm of disparity in the country’s socio-economic situation, joined the protests. Although illegal these protests were peaceful and were mainly unorganised gatherings of unemployed countryside youths who wanted to express their feelings of social injustice.

This changed on January the fifth.  At this point, thousands of armed mercenaries joined the protests in the city of Almaty. They seized the airport, police stations and administrative buildings and were protesting Mr Tokayev’s government and the former president Mr Nazarbayev.

To quell the violence and restore order to what was once seen to be one of the most stable states in central Asia, Mr Tokayev called in Russian led “peacekeepers” from the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO, made up of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhs, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan forces) who had the right to fire without warning and although reports are varying the clashes led to 225 protesters and law enforcement personnel being killed.

Curfews were declared and mass gatherings were banned. Even China has declared they would help increase “law enforcement and security” to avoid the influence of the “foreign militants” and “terrorists”. President Tokayev stated that over “20,000 bandits” hijacked these protests with many being Islamic Militants, groups which although not named were said to have trained outside of the country.

By the time Ash Barty took to the final of the Adelaide open to face the Russian born Kazakh, Elena Rybankina, on Sunday 9th the fires were dampening and riots calming. The Kazakh government, after a short period of dissolution, now firmly back in place, are disclosing they have arrested around 12,000 people for participation in the protests however in a state where the cards are held so close to their chests the death toll and arrest numbers could be significantly higher.

But the reason so many eyes are centred on this oil-rich nation is that for the first time in thirty years the deep reforms necessary and old elitist viewpoints can be addressed. No one expects Mr Tokayev to become a man of the people and completely disassemble the economic and political power his close associates hold, no matter how many CEOs, who happen to be sons-in-law of Nazarbayev, are asked to leave their positions. But he does have the opportunity to step out of Nazarbayev’s huge shadow and become his own figure.

This is already starting with an unprecedented attack on Nazarbayev, saying his mentor had failed to share the country’s vast wealth with ordinary Kazakhs and announcing wide ranging reforms which are aimed at winning popular support amongst ordinary Kazakhs, including setting up a new fund for the public good to which oligarchs and wealthy businessman will be forced to contribute.

The injustice in the resource distribution outside of the oligarchy and corruption that follows is not part of Mr Tokayev’s makeup and this could be critical now, especially whilst those loyal to Nazarbayev are still holding many economic reigns in Kazakhstan.

Mr Tokayev, although now in a stronger position, is at a tipping point of shifting the country towards democracy or continuing down his predecessor’s path. Either way as a country rich in oil reserves and one crying out for structural reform, this is no doubt an opportunity and one many across the world are watching very closely.

Article was written by Kate Turner Senior Manager Markets, Analytics & Sustainability

* Spoiler Alert – Do not read if you have not yet seen “Don’t Look Up.” *

Like many over the Christmas period, I settled down to Netflix and scrolled through hours of TV without settling on anything in particular. However, after a few days of passing over the satirical dark comedy about climate change called Don’t Look Up, I thought well why not, I will see if it lives up to the hype. Now I admit I was a bit sceptical; I had some significant issues with An Inconvenient Truth so wasn’t hopeful a dark comedy on climate change would hit the mark.

If you haven’t seen it the film is directed by Adam McKay, you think he sounds familiar well he used to write for Saturday Night Live and has in his last two outings to the big screen he looked at the 2008 financial crash (The Big Short) and the USAs ex vice president Dick Cheney, who has a penchant for warmongering and starting “Forever Wars” under false pretences (Vice). Think they sound pretty dark well Don’t look up is on a whole new level.

The overarching theme is that a giant comet is hurtling towards Earth but the scientists who discovered it struggle to convince society to act on such an existential threat, are an absurd but depressingly accurate disaster satire of actual current events around Climate Change.

The depiction of a culture that has dissolved into soundbites and 280 character tweets (I confess I had to google that) is more of a 2 x 4 to the head than a subtle interpretation of a generation of social media and celebrity. Yet the film has sparked enormous discussion (ironically mainly online) some focused on the power of storytelling.

It is no secret that the messaging from Environmental and Governmental groups around climate change are dense and don’t convey the message in a way to engage the largely disengaged public. I studied Climate and had a professor who had input to the IPCC report and can honestly say I have not read the whole of one of their reports.

However, does that mean we should reduce the messaging to metaphorical tales? Of course not, but its effectiveness has long been questioned. In 2019 James Cameron spoke to variety magazine and doubted the effect movies could have.

“Frankly [audiences] don’t want to hear about climate change,” Cameron stated. “We did a [documentary] show called ‘Years of Living Dangerously.’ We won an Emmy and got cancelled. … Does [storytelling] do that much good?”

No one can answer that question accurately but ultimately some lessons can be learned around how to communicate with a new generation, and I think everyone can agree it doesn’t include bombarding them with facts and figures over and over with the aforementioned 2 x 4.

The movie ends with the cast sat around the dinner table having a heartfelt and candid conversation before the end of the world (sorry if you got this far and didn’t realise the Comet destroyed nearly everything on earth). But what if this movie does one thing, what if it increases these discussions? It makes people listen and ask how do they connect their own values with climate action?

Don’t get me wrong one movie will not lead to dramatic re-conventions of COP parties to sign a net-zero treaty today. But it could spark individual conversations, if we realise (as said by Leonardo DiCaprio) “we may not stop this comet, but we can stop the climate crisis.” Could a collective shift be enough to bypass the self-aggrandising powers depicted by Meryl Streep and instead of denying there is a solvable crisis take the necessary steps to stop it from occurring?

Whether it be the dark comedy aspect, the stellar cast line-up or just the general herd mentality of click-bate the fact that a movie about Climate Change can hold the top spot of #1 most watched on Netflix worldwide (especially over the Christmas period) is nothing to sniff at and it certainly has me looking up!

Article written by Kate Turner Senior Manager Markets, Analytics & Sustainability.

#edge2020 #climatechange #lookup

Greenland isn’t a place you envision as being a trendsetter on the Climate stage. In fact, if I asked you to imagine Greenland you are probably hearing David Attenborough’s soothing voice discuss remote ice sheets melting or the plight of the countries Polar Bears and Arctic Foxes. Yet what is less discussed is a country with a huge history and culture. After years of Danish colonisation, excluding a short period of sovereignty in WWII when Denmark was taken by the Nazis, under the protection of the Americans due to their vital interests based in the country, many Greenlanders now wish to have the chains of their imperial rulers broken and to do so without the industrial capitalism which has led to climate change.

With a population of around 56 thousand, no daily newspaper – the closest you will get is a weekly publication and serious social issues within the country, leading to high rates of alcoholism and HIV/AIDS, Greenland doesn’t carry the political clout of its landmass. However, despite this, they are now at the forefront of Climate Action.

This has come about as in 2021 their 6th government was dissolved following the fragmentation of the Liberal Democrat portions of the Siumut party from its main governing portion. Why, well it was all caused by disagreement around rare metals mining.

This dissolution led to a snap election in April 2021 and the accession of the 7th Prime Minister of Greenland, Mute Egede of the Inuit Ataqatigiit Party. Mr Egede and his party rose to power on a platform of Health and the Environment.

Greenland’s Environmental stance hasn’t always been so clear cut, the Siumut party who were in power since 2013, and most of the home rule since the 1970s, were always grand supporters of the opportunities mining and drilling could bring to the country. The rhetoric that had them elected was that these opportunities would eventually lead to the long-awaited independence from Denmark, which they still heavily rely on for financial aid. Currently, the Danish dependant territory (Greenland) relies on Denmark for around two thirds of its budget revenue. Therefore, being able to tap into what is estimated to be 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil, 30% of the worlds undiscovered Gas and potentials for uranium stores as well as mining for rare metals, is a tempting one to allow them financial and governmental independence.  

Yet there is an irony to this tale. These carbon stores are only now becoming available due to the Artic being the fastest warming area of our planet, firmly placing Greenland at the coal face if you will of Climate Change. The thinning ice sheets which allow this exploration and drilling are only made possible due to the emissions from those fuels that are being exhumed.

However, you cannot look at these decisions in isolation. There is also geopolitics, aka money and power, which needs to be considered in any exploration decisions. Donald Trump may have been brash when he said that Greenland was a “strategically” interesting prospect and offered to buy it from Denmark in 2019 but the interest hasn’t waned. Only last year Joe Biden, in an effort to re-emerge as a dominant party in rare earth mineral supply chains, signed an executive order to review gaps in the US’ domestic supply chain for rare earth resources, the key to microchips, green technology and medical devices. China is now the dominant supplier in this supply chain, however, prior to 1980, it was the US who held these puppet strings. But with China able to provide these minerals much cheaper than its American counterparts the market, expertise and investment moved also. This surely made some look at Donald Trump’s potential bid with a different lens.

This now leaves Greenland sat on a potential “Gold” Mine of natural resources which could be the key to tipping the scale in any trade war between these superpowers.

Yet, the domestic population are not on board with the environmental cost of this exploration and the Inuit Ataqatigiit Parties rhetoric has resonated with many Greenlanders. A Centerstone of their election campaign was that they would be banning all explorations of radioactive deposits and increasing regulation around any other type of mining. This was backed up when they rose to power and passed regulation halting all investigation, exploration and extraction of Uranium.

The first victim of the new governments’ policy is the Kvanefjeld mining project, a joint Australian and Chinese based company under the name Greenland Minerals. Their project was mining the area for Uranium and Neodymium, the latter being a crucial component of wind turbines and electric cars.

But the Egede’s government hasn’t stopped there, at COP26 in Glasgow Egede also dismissed the previous governments rhetoric that Greenland was dependant on its oil, gas and natural mineral reserves for the economy and signed up to the Paris Agreement. He went further and pledged to significantly increase their hydropower capability.

Then at the end of 2021, Egede took his boldest stance yet. Greenland has now announced it is permanently halting all new oil and gas exploration. Even with a huge oil field being discovered off the East coast of the country, the government said “The future does not lie in oil. The future belongs to renewable energy, and in that respect, we have much more to gain.”

So, can the country still gain financial independence and a self-sufficient economy? Yes, says Egede. As previously discussed, he is heavily focusing on the island’s hydropower potential (which is expected to increase as more glacier ice melts) and he hopes this development will reduce the dependence on costly petrol imports and lower living costs. With an estimated 8 per cent of the Earths fresh water based in Greenland, the potential is there. However, due to the sheer distance between these sources of power and other off takers Greenland must find a way to utilise the power and export it within its environmental policy. Iceland had the same issue and chose to utilise the energy in Aluminium smelters which although economically successful attracted significant opposition from the environmental lobby. Therefore, for the policy to be environmentally successful, this is an unanswered question for the Greenland government.

Egede is also hoping as the arctic ice melts for large parts of the year there are trade routes that can be opened through the North-West passage. This could allow those settlements (inc the capital Nuuk) which lie on the West coast to become part of a major shipping route. Further, they are looking to follow the success of their neighbour Iceland’s growth in Tourism and this is being supported by increasing air travel facilities including a new airport at Nuuk, which although delayed due to Covid-19 is expected to be open in 2024.

Overall, their vision and conviction have to be applauded, only time will tell how successful they are and if the policies will last future changes in governments and the ever-increasing geopolitical pressure. Either way, Greenland is one to watch and not just for the Polar Bears.

On Friday, CSIRO released a draft of its latest annual GenCost report. The report is used by AEMO for some of its inputs and assumptions in their publications such as the ISP and the ESOO. The report calculates the expected levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from a range of generation technologies.

In this year’s report, wind and solar continue to be Australia’s cheapest generation technologies. The report also explores the impact of storage on wind and solar, with the addition of batteries, wind and solar still outperform coal and gas.

The 2021-22 GenCost report estimates solar has a levelled cost of between $44 to $65/MWh and wind costs range between $45 to $57/MWh. The large range in costs is a direct relationship between the scale of the projects.

The CSIRO estimate to build a new baseload coal-fired power station would result in a LCOE of up to $118/MWh and gas is not far behind at $111/MWh. For units with a lower utilisation rate compared to a baseload unit, the LCOE would be significantly higher.

The report also looked into the future and predicts how the cost of generation technologies will change. It is likely the cost of coal and gas technologies will remain constants, in my view they will increase as equipment costs increase, access to specialist skilled labour decreases and capacity factors drop. On the other hand, the CSIRO predicts solar, wind, batteries etc will continue to drop in price resulting in lower LCOE into the future.

With a rapidly changing energy landscape, the CSIRO have also looked at the cost of integrating intermittent generation with storage and grid support services. The CSIRO predicts the integration of technologies and services will add as little as $10/MWh to the LCOE of the generation asset alone. Even with this integration, renewable as considerably cheaper than coal or gas-fired generation.

The study also found if Australia goes down the “gas led” recovery it is highly dependent on the cost of gas. There is a slim chance that gas can compete with renewables but only if gas prices are below $6/GJ and the gas-fired generator has a capacity factor of 80% or above.

If any of the existing coal-fired generators go down the track of installing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) it will make them less competitive leading to lower capacity factors. CCS is predicted to increase the LCOE of between $162 and $216/MWh. If the technology is used on Gas fired assets it is likely to increase the LCOE to between $107 and $170MWh.

Stepping outside conventional technologies, the CSIRO would envisage if Australia went down the nuclear path it would result in the highest LCOE of any generation technology.

With the move to a hydrogen economy, the CSIRO have also included the cost of electrolysers, while expensive now the expectation is that they will drop in price by 75% over the next 10 years and by up to 90% by 2050.

Although the GenCost report is currently out for stakeholder consultation it is an interesting view into the future of the Australian energy market.

The Northern Territory Government has taken a major step towards meeting their 50% renewable energy target across the Darwin – Katherine interconnected grid with the procurement of a battery.

The 35MW Darwin-Katherine Battery Energy Storage System (DK BESS) better known as the ‘big battery’ is fundamental in allowing more renewable energy to be installed into the territory. The Darwin-Katherine grid connects Darwin to Katherine through one transmission line. Most of the renewable generation is not installed close to the Darwin load centre but at the extremities of the network down in the Katherine region. The installation of the battery is critical to allowing renewable energy to be produced in the Katherine region where the solar irradiation is high while the load centre is within the Darwin region.

Darwin’s grid operates primarily on gas-fired generation as the wet season does not make solar a viable solution for reliable power. By using the renewable generation from Katherine and storing it in a battery will save around $9.8M each year as a result of fuel savings. At this rate, the DK BESS will be paid off in five years.

The Darwin-Katherine electricity system is relatively small with about 150,000 end users and due to generous incentives, one in six have installed rooftop PV which reduces the need for grid-supplied electricity.

I have some experience with the complexities of the Northern Territory energy market as prior to Edge I worked in Darwin on the design and integration of the Northern Territory Electricity Market (NTEM) and the 50% renewable energy target. While only a small network, the Darwin-Katherine electricity system presents all the challenges that the NEM experiences. Historically, parts of the grid have been blacked out numerous times and the system struggles to operate with the influx of solar.

The major benefits of the DK BESS include significantly reduced carbon emissions for the Territory as a result of reducing the need for gas-fired spinning reserve which results in a cost-saving of around $9.8 million and an emissions reduction of about 58,000t per annum. By replacing the aging frame 6 gas turbines with a battery, the contingency and inertia services it will provide will improve reliability at a low long-term cost.

Construction of the battery will commence in 2022 with the DK BESS expected to be operational in 2023

Article Written By

Alex Driscoll

Senior Manager Markets, Trading & Advisory

Later this week Enel Energy Australia will join the NEM as an electricity retailer. The retailer authorisation was recently approved by the AER and will take effect on the 8th of December.

This approval signals that the likes of Shell and Telstra, which also recently gained their authorisation, are likely to feel the pressure of this multinational in the electricity retail space.

Enel Australia’s parent company based in Italy is the world’s largest private renewable energy participant and is likely to target the sale of green power to businesses and in the future household customers as well.

Enel was bidding for the retailer Powershop which was owned by Meridian Energy. Powershop was successfully picked up by Shell earlier in the year.

Enel already has a presence in Australia with solar farms at Bungala in South Australia and Cohuna in Victoria with a total output of 300MW.

With the addition of the retail business, combined with the renewable generation and the demand response capabilities from within the EnelX business, they are now truly vertically integrated and across both traditional and emerging services in the NEM. Enel also has plans for 1500MW of new generation and battery storage in the next couple of years.

Article written by

Alex Driscoll

Senior Manager Markets, Trading & Advisory

As parliament closes for the year the Labor party has released its plan to create jobs, cut power bills and reduce emissions. The document which is plastered with images of Wind farms, solar panels and heavy industry manufacturing outlines the case to seize the opportunity of the decade.

As an overview, the Powering Australia plan will incentivise $76B of investment which should create over 600,000 jobs and the added benefit of cutting power bills on average by $378 by 2030. The increased focus on renewable energy will also result in renewables sharing 82% of the market by 2030.

High level modelling demonstrates Labors plan will improve the economic landscape for Australia allowing up to compete with the rest of the world while improving the health of individuals and the environment.

Although not strong on details the plan outlines to Power Australia Labor would invest $20B to establish a public Rewiring the Nation Corporation to modernise the transmission grid, co-invest $100M to provide solar to 25,000 households locked out of rooftop solar schemes and provide $200M to install 400 community batteries which could be utilised by up to 100,000 households.

Big business could also be in for change with Labor taking the Business councils advice and reducing the emissions baselines for large emitters covered under the existing Safeguard Mechanism. The plan will also invest $3B to support renewable manufacturing and a further 10,000 energy apprentices will be trained.

The transport sector should get tax breaks and discount to stimulate the electric car market.

Modelling shows that the $76B Australia which is 3% of GDP should reduce emissions by 440Mt or 43% below 2005 levels. As well as the creation of over 600,000 jobs by 2030 it should have dropped the average electricity bills by 26%.

Article written by

Alex Driscoll

Senior Manager Markets, Trading & Advisory

Now I want to start by saying I am not scrooge. I love Christmas and think it is one of the best times of the year, as the Edge office will attest to with the decorations up and Carols starting on the 1^st of December like clockwork! But as we all start decking the halls it may be worth looking at what we can do to help our carbon footprint over the holidays.

A study in the USA showed that Christmas decorations account for 6.63 billion KWh of electricity consumption (Moss & Agyapong, 2015). The energy savings trust predicts that just one of those brightly lit homes over the 2 weeks of Christmas period can emit enough carbon dioxide to fill 95 telephone boxes.

So, if we want to celebrate but still think of the environment what can we do?

Well first you can switch to energy efficient LED lights which are up to 90% more efficient than incandescent lights.

The second consideration is around waste. Do you really need all that food, I mean Coles is only shut for 24 hours, how much milk do you really need!?!?

A study by respect food showed that Christmas is the time of year when the highest food waste happens. It is estimated 5million tonnes of food goes to landfill in Australia alone and our total waste increases by 30% in that week. I am not joking when I quote the stats which say in wrapping paper alone there is enough used to go around Australia 6 times (roughly 150,000km of it!) and much of that cannot be recycled. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t enjoy to excess, but before you throw anything out just think, does it have to go in the bin? Can it be frozen? Can I recycle this or re-use it in some way? If you get really stuck for ideas everyone loves a ham pie!!!!

Now, no article on Christmas sustainability can avoid the inevitable tree in the room, I am not even diving into tinslegate today, but sustainable decorations are the google hot button right now and I will let you dive down that rabbit hole yourself.

But the debate between buying a real tree or an artificial one has been going for as long as I can remember. The consensus seems to be, if you are going to buy an artificial tree you need to keep it for at least 12 years to ensure it has a lower carbon footprint than using a real one. There are obviously factors to this. If the real tree was imported then its carbon cost is seriously higher, but overall, the message is, don’t buy a cheap artificial tree you will throw out at the end of the holidays, and if you do buy one make sure you will still like it in 2033! If you don’t want to do that, why don’t you look at real trees and in the new year see if someone will use it for chippings or firewood, further reducing its carbon footprint. Or if you want to go all out there is the uber green solution of re-planting the tree for the next 11 months and then re-using it next December, this obviously doesn’t include the carbon required for the axe!

Whatever happens no one wants to ruin Christmas and we all hope you don’t run out of milk for your nan’s tea, if you do it wasn’t my fault! Furthermore 2020 and 2021 have not been years to write home about and a celebration is well and truly earned, especially if you can travel to family across borders. All we ask is to remember you are already doing the right thing 51 weeks of the year, you just need to keep it up over Christmas. All small changes can make a huge differences.