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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Renewable energy 2014-07, Vol.67, p.128-135
Main Authors: SIMPSON, Genevieve, CLIFTON, Julian
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&amp;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 &amp; 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