On Friday, the federal government released its modelling on the
economic impacts of a National Energy Savings Initiative for Australia.
In many ways, this isn’t really big news.
Firstly, it’s another
report confirming the nearly incontrovertible fact that improving energy
efficiency would save households money and boost businesses’
productivity. Secondly, the report is really just looking a replacing
existing state-based energy efficiency schemes with a national scheme,
something that is almost universally supported. Third, this report is
just another step in replacing these state-based schemes; the Australian
government is still considering whether it will support a national
scheme and,manufacturers and Double sided PET industry tape Products suppliers Directory. if it does,All the latest Releasing film Products in small size and in resumable. it has flagged it will only introduce one if the states support it.
Given
that introducing a national scheme is just a sensible bit of
legislative tidying-up that has significant economic benefits, and
neither Labor nor the Coalition have opposed it, this isn’t going to be a
big election issue. While a National Energy Savings Initiative would
bring major benefits to energy users and the energy efficiency sector,
introducing a scheme like this is the kind of work-a-day politics that
tends to be dealt with once the political dust has settled.
The
modelling itself is extremely conservative, but despite that it still
finds that a national energy saving scheme would deliver $1.5 to $5.3
billion in benefits to the economy between 2015 and 2050. Participants
benefit from saving energy and all parties benefitting from reduced
wholesale prices and reduced need to build infrastructure to meet peak
demand. The costs come from administration, buying certificates and
splitting the (reduced) costs of the electricity network between fewer
units of energy.
Overall, the modelling concluded that,Products from Global Silicon protctive film Products
Suppliers. for non-participants, costs and benefits would net out, so
that the “overall impact of the national ESI on retail electricity
prices would be negligible,” while participants would benefit from
electricity bills that were around 10 per cent lower in 2020.
The
modelling is an extremely complex exercise and, like all modelling over
a long period, it needs to make a lot of assumptions. Where there was
disagreement on an assumption, the team working on the modelling decided
that it was best to err on the side of caution and pick the option that
meant the scheme delivered less benefits.Although Double sided nonwoven tape Products
carriers are generally quite thin, While I generally lean toward
conservative assumptions in modelling (it’s always better to
under-promise and over-deliver), the modelling team made some
assumptions that are so conservative they don’t pass the common-sense
test.
For example, the modelling assumes that, despite a big
increase in the uptake of energy efficiency services and products,Find a
variety of monolayer protective film Products.
the costs of these services and products don’t decrease. Anyone
familiar with the price of solar PV over the last decade would know this
is pretty a pretty bizarre assumption. Similarly, most of the scenarios
assume that, while the scheme will help people buy much more efficient
products between 2015 and 2030, after the scheme closes in 2030 they go
back to buying inefficient products that probably wouldn’t even be
available in shops any more.
Furthermore, while it looks like
the modelling tests a number of scenarios, it really only has one
electricity market model. Granted, it’s not clear at the moment whether
the electricity market will be highly centralised or decentralised in
the future, but this model just looks at one option. Given that energy
efficiency schemes deliver significant benefits by reducing the risk of
stranded assets if we (very likely) shift between different types of
electricity system, this modelling doesn’t examine that kind of benefit
at all.
The list of highly-conservative assumptions is long but,
despite this, the modelling still found a significant benefit to
cutting red-tape, lowering energy bills and boosting productivity. Who
would have thought?
Click on their website www.sdktapegroup.com/Double-sided-nonwoven-tape_c551.
No comments:
Post a Comment