The big questions about Malcolm Turnbull’s energy policy will be, for consumers, what it would mean for their bills and, for business, how confident it can be that the approach would hold if Bill Shorten were elected.
The government needs to convince people they’ll get some price relief, but even as the Prime Minister unveiled the policy the rubbery nature of the household savings became apparent.
Crucially, the policy aims to give investors the certainty they have demanded, but the risk is this could be undermined if Labor, which is well ahead in the polls, indicated an ALP government would go off in yet another direction.
And most immediately, there is also the issue of states’ attitudes, because their co-operation is needed for the policy’s implementation. Turnbull talked to premiers after the announcement, and the plan goes to the Council of Australian Governments next month.
Turnbull describes the policy as “a game changer” that would deliver “affordability, reliability and responsibility [on emissions reduction]”.
Unsurprisingly – given it would end the subsidy for renewables, rejecting Chief Scientist Alan Finkel’s recommendation for a Clean Energy Target – the policy sailed through the Coalition party room with overwhelming support.
Finkel later chose to go along with it rather than be offended by the discarding of his proposal. The important thing, he said, was that “they’re effectively adopting an orderly transition” for the energy sector, which was what he had urged.
In the party room Tony Abbott was very much a minority voice when he criticised the plan; his desire for a discussion of the politics was effectively put down by a prime minister who had his predecessor’s measure on the day.
The policy - recommended by the Energy Security Board, which includes representatives of the bodies operating and regulating the national energy market - is based on a new “national energy guarantee”, with two components.
Energy retailers across the National Electricity Market, which covers the eastern states, would have to “deliver reliable and lower emissions generation each year”.
A “reliability guarantee” would be set to deliver the level of dispatchable energy - from coal, gas, pumped hydro, batteries – needed in each state. An “emissions guarantee” would also be set, to contribute to Australia’s Paris commitments.
According to the Energy Security Board’s analysis, “it is expected that following the guarantee could lead to a reduction in residential bills in the order of $100-115 per annum over the 2020-2030 period”. The savings would phase up during the period.
When probed, that estimate came to look pretty rough and ready. More modelling has to be done. In question time, Turnbull could give no additional information about the numbers, saying he only had what was in the board’s letter to the government.
So people shouldn’t be hanging out for the financial relief this policy would bring, although to be fair, Turnbull points to the fact it is part of a suite of measures the government is undertaking.
Business welcomed the policy, but made it clear it wanted more detail and – crucially – that it is looking for bipartisanship.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the policy’s detail “and its ability to win bipartisan and COAG support will be critical”. Andy Vesey, chief of AGL, tweeted that “with bipartisan support” the policy would provide investment certainty.
The Australian Industry Group said it was “a plausible new direction for energy policy” but “only bipartisanship on energy policy will create the conditions for long-term investment in energy generation and by big energy users.”
It’s not entirely clear whether the government would prefer a settlement or a stoush with the opposition on energy.
Turnbull told parliament it had arranged for the opposition to have a briefing from the board, and urged it to “get on board” with the policy.
But Labor homed in on his not giving a “guarantee” on price, as well as the smallness of the projected savings.
Climate spokesman Mark Butler said it appeared it would be “just a 50 cent [a week] saving for households in three years’ time, perhaps rising to as much as $2.00 per week in a decade.”
But while the opposition has gone on the attack, it is also hedging its bets, playing for time.
“We’ve got to have … some meat on the bones”, Butler said, “because all the Prime Minister really announced today was a bunch of bones”.
“We need detail to be able to sit down with stakeholders, with the energy industry, with big businesses that use lots of energy, with stakeholder groups that represent households, and obviously state and territory governments as well, and start to talk to them about the way forward in light of the announcement the government made today,” he said.
The initial reaction from state Labor is narky. Victorian premier Daniel Andrews said it seemed Finkel had been replaced by “professor Tony Abbott as the chief scientist”, while South Australia’s Jay Weatherill claimed Turnbull “has now delivered a coal energy target.”
These are early days in this argument. Federal Labor will have to decide how big an issue it wants to make energy and climate at the election. Apart from talking to stakeholders and waiting for more detail, it wants to see whether the plan flies at COAG.
If it does, the federal opposition could say that rather than tear up the scheme in government, it would tweak it and build on it. That way, Labor would avoid criticism it was undermining investment confidence. But if there is an impasse with the states and the plan is poorly received by the public, the “climate wars” could become hotter.