On Friday, 3rd of September the Victorian Parliament ratified a new Climate Change Act. At the heart of the Act is a target for Victoria to reduce its emissions by 20% by 2020 (on 2000 levels). Now we all know that the science tells us that stronger  targets than this are going to be necessary to limit climate change, and we'll continue to campaign for scientific targets. However last Friday Victoria's greenhouse target was to reduce the state's emissions by 60% by 2050.

That was an unlegislated target of the ALP Government. Now we have a stronger, nearer term, legislated target which has been supported by all parties in Parliament. It is also an unconditional target, which means that regardless of what happens nationally with emissions trading, Victoria's target stands. That's a significant step in the right direction, and a sign that our parliament is beginning to reflect community consensus on the need for climate action in Victoria.

Congratulations to the ALP Government for introducing the Bill, and the Greens and Coalition for supporting it. We were particularly pleased that the Coalition supported the Bill given the federal Liberals and Nationals chaos on the issue. We now have both the ALP and the Coalition in Victoria holding much stronger policy positions than their Federal counterparts.

What's more achieveing the 20% reductions target will require some significant policy effort. Left unchecked Victoria's emissions are anticipated to climb to 130 million tonnes per year by 2020, but our 20% target requires that emissions are cut to 96 million tonnes annually by 2020. That's a cut of 3.4 million tonnes every year for the next decade or 34 million tonnes annually by 2020.

The recently released Climate Change White Paper outlined a number of policies that would lead to some emissions reductions, (e.g. replacing one quarter of Hazelwood and doubling the state's energy efficiency target), but not in the order of 3.4 million tonnes per year. So now we've got the legislative mandate for new climate policies to cut pollution.

As you may know, Environment Victoria has two big ideas that they think all political parties should adopt. First, replace the whole of Hazelwood power station could deliver emissions reductions of 14.5 million tonnes per year by the end of 2012. Second, retrofitting one million Victorian homes for energy and water efficiency could deliver another 2.7 million tonnes of annual abatement while protecting Victorian households against rising utility bills, water shortages and extreme weather.

The passage of the Climate Change Act shows that the Victorian Parliament can rise to the challenge of climate change, regardless of federal inaction. The state election is 12 weeks away. Let's hope that the policies we need to achieve our new target are seized upon and delivered.

Source: Environment Victoria. 

Ninteen major Australian companies have called for a price on carbon to be introduced as soon as possible.

The Clean Energy Council has released an open letter to major political parties backed by many of the nation's top energy companies - major employers in regional Australia.

The letter calls for the introduction of a price on carbon as it is crucial to Australia meeting its emissions reduction target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020.

The Clean Energy Council's Chief Executive Matthew Warren said Australians wanted action on climate change and cheaper clean energy and business wanted certainty to invest in more clean energy projects and jobs.

"An emissions trading scheme is widely recognised as being the most efficient way of reducing emissions across the economy," Mr Warren said.

"It is a policy that has been supported by Professor Ross Garnaut, former Prime Minister John Howard, former coalition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, the Greens and the Labor Party."

Carbon price schemes that have already been implemented in Europe and New Zealand, are now before the US Senate and are being planned for countries like Japan and China.

"We welcome and congratulate the role the independents are taking in ensuring climate change policy remains on the radar of the major political parties," Mr Warren said. "Renewable energy is also great for rural and regional Australia - it will create growth, greater economic diversity and help drought-proof farms and regions."

"Australia has the opportunity now to re-set the political agenda on climate change and return to the implementation of a carbon price in the next political term. We should seize that opportunity."

Source: Clean Energy Council.

The Brumby Government's troubled $2 billion smart meter rollout has been given a ringing endorsement by an independent economic analysis, which found it to be "cost effective no matter which mix of costs and benefits are used."

The Oakley Greenwood report, to be released today, found that the benefit of rolling out the smart meters would be between $1.87 billion and $3.51 billion over 20 years and that when combined with additional demand management services the benefits would be between $2.58 billion and $5 billion over the same period.

The report found that the cost over a 20 year period of installing 2.5 million smart meters in Victorian homes would be up to $2 billion (with additional services) compared with continuing to operate current manual meters for a cost of $1.5 billion.

Energy Minister Peter Bachelor told The Age that a moratorium on time-of-use pricing, which charges households more during peak times, would remain until the end of the current trials.

Digital smart meters are being installed to encourage households to cut energy use and shift to off-peak usage when power is cheaper to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Source: Peak Energy. 

Australia's soaring energy costs, there's barely a family in the country that hasn't seen their bills skyrocket by hundreds of dollar recently.

But now the definitive guide, why is it happening and how it's possible to wind back some of these costs and take control.

"I was shocked, absolutely shocked, I, it took me a while to think, what's going on here?" said Melbourne mum Kelly Phillips.

Kelly is using the same television, the same computer and the same fridge as last year but this years power bill is alarmingly different.

Her bill for last year was just under $600, a year later it has gone up to $915, an increase of approximately 50%. To be fair, it was a very cold winter and Kelly does have a young son, even so the actual rate has risen by 18%.

"It' ridiculous, peak rates is when I'm using it the most, 18% jump, it's not justified, it's ridiculous," Kelly said.

"I'm quite frustrated, pretty angry, but what can you do?" said Robert Vargas of Sydney. His power bill went from $270 to $1,300 in just 9 months, that's a 5 fold increase.

"I feel quite frustrated that it has gone up as much as it had and I really don't know what to do about it to be quite honest. I come home now and instead of enjoying myself I just turn things off as I go around the house to try and not get a bill that's the same."

So, why are power prices rising so steeply? Deregulation of the industry was supposed to mean cheaper power, but other factors are stopping that.

First, an increasing population, bigger households with more appliances, plus heat-waves and cold-snaps all result in a surge in electricity demand.

Add to that the fact no new power stations are being built, there's a lack of supply. Investment in infrastructure to improve network reliability of supply is costly and throw in the Federal Government's mandatory 'Renewable Energy Target' scheme, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a cost and you have expensive power.

"The cost of electricity will increase consistently over the next decade," said Ben Freund of GoSwitch.com.au.

Australians have been zapped with about a 10% increase in their power bills in the last few years. The bad news is they're set to rise by a staggering 100% in the next three years. The good news is, there is something you can do about it.

"Almost everyone is paying too much for their power bills because very few consumers are on the cheapest plan available," said Ben Freund.

"There are multiple providers around and that's the good thing about the deregulation that we've been through. If you're not happy with the provider you've got today, you can look at going to another provider. So there is an answer to it, you can do something about this," said Steven Mickenbecker from Canstar Blue.

Source: A Current Affair. 

Australia is the worlds top exporter of coal which generates more than 80% of its power, transports most good by road and cars clog its cities.

But the country has been a laggard in passing a law enshrining a cap on emissions and a market-based trading scheme for carbon pollution.

That could change. Analysts say a minority Labor government will face increased pressure from Independents and the Greens, who won significant voter support in the August 21 polls, to push tougher climate change policies.

Here are some questions and answers on tackling Australia's greenhouse gas emissions:

WHY THE NEED TO ACT?

Australia's economy, and particularly its power generation sector, has been driven by access to nearly limitless supplies of cheap brown and black coal, and gas. Coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, still remains the cheapest source of power.

Australians also love their cars. In a nation of 22 million people, there were 15.7 million vehicles registered in 2009, up from 13.5 million in 2004, government figures show.

Australia's net emission grew by 31.4% between 2008 and 1990, the base year for the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol climate pact.

Over the same period, emissions from power generation rose 52.1%, while transport emissions grew 29.2%. Overall energy sector emissions, making up three-quarters of the nation's greenhouse gas pollution, rose 44%.

A growing population, expanding at roughly 2% a year, and rising incomes, fuel greater demand for energy.

The projected impact of climate change on Australia also worries many. Rising sea levels, greater extremes of droughts and floods, higher temperatures, more intense bushfires, water shortages, and warmer and more acidic oceans in coming decades all point to a tougher future.

WHAT HAS THE GOVERNMENT DONE SO FAR?

Not much. It has developed an emissions trading scheme but twice failed to win political support and has since shelved it.

The government has also set a target of cutting emissions by 5% by 2020 from 2000 levels and by up to 25% if there is a strong global agreement.

Europe has a more ambitious target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 30% if there is a strong global climate pact. Britain is targeting a cut of 34% below 1990 levels by 2020.

The Australian government has had better luck winning parliamentary approval for a scheme that mandates a target of 20% renewable energy generation by 2020 and has also laid out a A$4.5 billion initiative backing investment in clean energy.

IS A CARBON PRICE BEST?

Yes. An emissions trading scheme that sets a clear reduction target and lets the market set a price for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted is regarded as the best way to drive greater energy efficiency and investment in cleaner energy.

The Renewable Energy Target (RET) laws just passed by parliament, while boosting investment in wind farms and some other renewables, won't bring major emission cuts, analysts say.

Instead, the RET will promote additional generating capacity to help meet projected annual growth in consumption of about 3%.

The RET is unlikely to displace coal-fired generation sharply but is likely to encourage fast-start gas-fired generation needed to meet baseload power demands when wind power output dips.

Generators say a CO2 price that effectively makes coal-fired power more expensive is needed to drive a shift to cleaner gas and new-generation renewables, such as geothermal.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS IF THERE'S NO CARBON PRICE?

Increasingly, investors are demanding certainty on CO2 pricing to ensure financing for investment plans.

Some companies and the government also say the longer the delay, the higher the costs to the power generating sector, other industries and households in meeting the minus 5% target.

Source: Reuters.