Loading…
Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target
Australia's Renewable Energy Target (RET) mandates investment in renewable electricity generation through a renewable energy certificate market. A legislated national consultative review of the RET was carried out in 2012, resulting in 8660 submissions. Respondents were invited to comment on th...
Saved in:
Published in: | Renewable energy 2014-07, Vol.67, p.128-135 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-eece6c4b9b8f3aba533bae6f57ce8342043e45f9861814760ba257438de9fe233 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-eece6c4b9b8f3aba533bae6f57ce8342043e45f9861814760ba257438de9fe233 |
container_end_page | 135 |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 128 |
container_title | Renewable energy |
container_volume | 67 |
creator | SIMPSON, Genevieve CLIFTON, Julian |
description | Australia's Renewable Energy Target (RET) mandates investment in renewable electricity generation through a renewable energy certificate market. A legislated national consultative review of the RET was carried out in 2012, resulting in 8660 submissions. Respondents were invited to comment on the value of the legislated target, including whether the legislated target should be a fixed GWh target or a fixed policy-based percentage-of-demand target, and the impact of review processes on the renewable energy industry. This paper presents the first analysis of submissions and evaluates their implications for the future of this policy. There was a consistent alignment of opinion amongst respondents, with industry and fossil-fuel generation/retailer groups opposing the RET objectives, whilst these were supported by NGOs and the renewable sector. However, most respondents favoured maintaining the overall goal of providing 20% renewable electricity generation by 2020. Concerns were raised by most groups of respondents regarding policy continuity and excessive reviewing procedures. In its response to the review, the Climate Change Authority made a total of 34 recommendations, 18 maintaining the status quo. Only six recommendations were endorsed by the Australian Government that would result in changes to the scheme. It is concluded that such review processes can be significantly harmful to maintaining stability and certainty in an industry requiring long-term commitment for investments, and that the Australian Government continues to favour the status quo in responding to consultative review processes relating to renewable energy policies. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.038 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1671569114</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1671569114</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-eece6c4b9b8f3aba533bae6f57ce8342043e45f9861814760ba257438de9fe233</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkcFq3DAQhkVoIdu0b5CDLqW92NFYsiz3toRNWwgkJOlZjLWjjTZe2ZW8LPv2ddjQa5jDXL7_n4GPsUsQJQjQV9syUZynrATIEqAU0pyxBZimLYQ21Qe2EK0WBSgD5-xTzlshoDaNWjB_H9xLiBt-CDFSyhzjmo9DH9yR76OjNGGI0_EHf5zwhZ6Hfk2Jj5QcjVMYYuaD58t9nhL2Ab9l_jC_ccCuJ76a6zZH_oRpQ9Nn9tFjn-nL275gf25WT9e_itu7n7-vl7eFk8ZMBZEj7VTXdsZL7LCWskPSvm4cGakqoSSp2rdGgwHVaNFhVTdKmjW1niopL9j3U--Yhr97ypPdheyo7zHSsM8WdAO1bgHU-2hdCdkY1ZoZVSfUpSHnRN6OKewwHS0I-2rAbu3JgH01YAHsbGCOfX27gNlh7xNGF_L_bGWUlI1s5T_Mg4ng</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1520378498</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024</source><creator>SIMPSON, Genevieve ; CLIFTON, Julian</creator><creatorcontrib>SIMPSON, Genevieve ; CLIFTON, Julian</creatorcontrib><description>Australia's Renewable Energy Target (RET) mandates investment in renewable electricity generation through a renewable energy certificate market. A legislated national consultative review of the RET was carried out in 2012, resulting in 8660 submissions. Respondents were invited to comment on the value of the legislated target, including whether the legislated target should be a fixed GWh target or a fixed policy-based percentage-of-demand target, and the impact of review processes on the renewable energy industry. This paper presents the first analysis of submissions and evaluates their implications for the future of this policy. There was a consistent alignment of opinion amongst respondents, with industry and fossil-fuel generation/retailer groups opposing the RET objectives, whilst these were supported by NGOs and the renewable sector. However, most respondents favoured maintaining the overall goal of providing 20% renewable electricity generation by 2020. Concerns were raised by most groups of respondents regarding policy continuity and excessive reviewing procedures. In its response to the review, the Climate Change Authority made a total of 34 recommendations, 18 maintaining the status quo. Only six recommendations were endorsed by the Australian Government that would result in changes to the scheme. It is concluded that such review processes can be significantly harmful to maintaining stability and certainty in an industry requiring long-term commitment for investments, and that the Australian Government continues to favour the status quo in responding to consultative review processes relating to renewable energy policies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-1481</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0682</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.038</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier</publisher><subject>Applied sciences ; Australia ; Consultancy services ; Electricity ; Energy ; Energy policy ; Exact sciences and technology ; Financing ; Governments ; Natural energy ; Policies ; Renewable energy</subject><ispartof>Renewable energy, 2014-07, Vol.67, p.128-135</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-eece6c4b9b8f3aba533bae6f57ce8342043e45f9861814760ba257438de9fe233</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-eece6c4b9b8f3aba533bae6f57ce8342043e45f9861814760ba257438de9fe233</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7481-7388</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,780,784,789,790,23930,23931,25140,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28433739$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>SIMPSON, Genevieve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CLIFTON, Julian</creatorcontrib><title>Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target</title><title>Renewable energy</title><description>Australia's Renewable Energy Target (RET) mandates investment in renewable electricity generation through a renewable energy certificate market. A legislated national consultative review of the RET was carried out in 2012, resulting in 8660 submissions. Respondents were invited to comment on the value of the legislated target, including whether the legislated target should be a fixed GWh target or a fixed policy-based percentage-of-demand target, and the impact of review processes on the renewable energy industry. This paper presents the first analysis of submissions and evaluates their implications for the future of this policy. There was a consistent alignment of opinion amongst respondents, with industry and fossil-fuel generation/retailer groups opposing the RET objectives, whilst these were supported by NGOs and the renewable sector. However, most respondents favoured maintaining the overall goal of providing 20% renewable electricity generation by 2020. Concerns were raised by most groups of respondents regarding policy continuity and excessive reviewing procedures. In its response to the review, the Climate Change Authority made a total of 34 recommendations, 18 maintaining the status quo. Only six recommendations were endorsed by the Australian Government that would result in changes to the scheme. It is concluded that such review processes can be significantly harmful to maintaining stability and certainty in an industry requiring long-term commitment for investments, and that the Australian Government continues to favour the status quo in responding to consultative review processes relating to renewable energy policies.</description><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Consultancy services</subject><subject>Electricity</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Energy policy</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Financing</subject><subject>Governments</subject><subject>Natural energy</subject><subject>Policies</subject><subject>Renewable energy</subject><issn>0960-1481</issn><issn>1879-0682</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkcFq3DAQhkVoIdu0b5CDLqW92NFYsiz3toRNWwgkJOlZjLWjjTZe2ZW8LPv2ddjQa5jDXL7_n4GPsUsQJQjQV9syUZynrATIEqAU0pyxBZimLYQ21Qe2EK0WBSgD5-xTzlshoDaNWjB_H9xLiBt-CDFSyhzjmo9DH9yR76OjNGGI0_EHf5zwhZ6Hfk2Jj5QcjVMYYuaD58t9nhL2Ab9l_jC_ccCuJ76a6zZH_oRpQ9Nn9tFjn-nL275gf25WT9e_itu7n7-vl7eFk8ZMBZEj7VTXdsZL7LCWskPSvm4cGakqoSSp2rdGgwHVaNFhVTdKmjW1niopL9j3U--Yhr97ypPdheyo7zHSsM8WdAO1bgHU-2hdCdkY1ZoZVSfUpSHnRN6OKewwHS0I-2rAbu3JgH01YAHsbGCOfX27gNlh7xNGF_L_bGWUlI1s5T_Mg4ng</recordid><startdate>20140701</startdate><enddate>20140701</enddate><creator>SIMPSON, Genevieve</creator><creator>CLIFTON, Julian</creator><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7481-7388</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20140701</creationdate><title>Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target</title><author>SIMPSON, Genevieve ; CLIFTON, Julian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-eece6c4b9b8f3aba533bae6f57ce8342043e45f9861814760ba257438de9fe233</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Consultancy services</topic><topic>Electricity</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Energy policy</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Financing</topic><topic>Governments</topic><topic>Natural energy</topic><topic>Policies</topic><topic>Renewable energy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>SIMPSON, Genevieve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CLIFTON, Julian</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Renewable energy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>SIMPSON, Genevieve</au><au>CLIFTON, Julian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target</atitle><jtitle>Renewable energy</jtitle><date>2014-07-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>67</volume><spage>128</spage><epage>135</epage><pages>128-135</pages><issn>0960-1481</issn><eissn>1879-0682</eissn><abstract>Australia's Renewable Energy Target (RET) mandates investment in renewable electricity generation through a renewable energy certificate market. A legislated national consultative review of the RET was carried out in 2012, resulting in 8660 submissions. Respondents were invited to comment on the value of the legislated target, including whether the legislated target should be a fixed GWh target or a fixed policy-based percentage-of-demand target, and the impact of review processes on the renewable energy industry. This paper presents the first analysis of submissions and evaluates their implications for the future of this policy. There was a consistent alignment of opinion amongst respondents, with industry and fossil-fuel generation/retailer groups opposing the RET objectives, whilst these were supported by NGOs and the renewable sector. However, most respondents favoured maintaining the overall goal of providing 20% renewable electricity generation by 2020. Concerns were raised by most groups of respondents regarding policy continuity and excessive reviewing procedures. In its response to the review, the Climate Change Authority made a total of 34 recommendations, 18 maintaining the status quo. Only six recommendations were endorsed by the Australian Government that would result in changes to the scheme. It is concluded that such review processes can be significantly harmful to maintaining stability and certainty in an industry requiring long-term commitment for investments, and that the Australian Government continues to favour the status quo in responding to consultative review processes relating to renewable energy policies.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier</pub><doi>10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.038</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7481-7388</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0960-1481 |
ispartof | Renewable energy, 2014-07, Vol.67, p.128-135 |
issn | 0960-1481 1879-0682 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1671569114 |
source | ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024 |
subjects | Applied sciences Australia Consultancy services Electricity Energy Energy policy Exact sciences and technology Financing Governments Natural energy Policies Renewable energy |
title | Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T17%3A19%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Picking%20winners%20and%20policy%20uncertainty:%20Stakeholder%20perceptions%20of%20Australia's%20Renewable%20Energy%20Target&rft.jtitle=Renewable%20energy&rft.au=SIMPSON,%20Genevieve&rft.date=2014-07-01&rft.volume=67&rft.spage=128&rft.epage=135&rft.pages=128-135&rft.issn=0960-1481&rft.eissn=1879-0682&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.038&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1671569114%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-eece6c4b9b8f3aba533bae6f57ce8342043e45f9861814760ba257438de9fe233%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1520378498&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |