Statutes Amendment (Electricity and Gas) (Energy Productivity) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 July 2020).

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:45): The challenge for our generation in relation to the climate emergency is to reduce our emissions in order to limit global warming to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This task will need to be tackled across all sectors of society and all parts of the economy. We need to reduce emissions in relation to energy, transport, industry and agriculture. The low-hanging fruit is the stationary energy sector; in other words, generating and using electricity and gas. Ultimately, we need to get rid of gas. Gas is a fossil fuel and its continued use is harming the planet.

Electricity, on the other hand, is here to stay. It can be generated without emissions through renewable generation options, such as wind, solar or hydro, and when used in combination with storage, such as batteries, solar thermal and pumped hydro, we can secure reliable, affordable and clean energy into the future. That is the supply side of the energy equation.

On the demand side, we have energy efficiency and energy productivity and we have government programs that encourage demand side responses and these programs are vital. For some years in South Australia, we have had the Retailer Energy Efficiency Scheme, which is to be replaced with a broader retail energy productivity scheme.

The bill before us is quite simple. Mechanically, the main thing it does is replace references to 'energy efficiency' with references to 'energy productivity'. Interestingly, that phrase is not defined in the bill. When we get into committee, I might explore that a bit further, but what is the difference between energy efficiency and energy productivity?

According to the Australian government's Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources website, being energy efficient means using less energy to achieve the same outcomes. Energy productivity is doing more using the same or less energy and that includes energy efficiency along with other ways to reduce energy costs. So it seems that all we are really doing in this bill is expanding the range of options that are available to us to deal with what the Chief Scientist, Professor Alan Finkel, described as a wicked trilemma: we want energy to be affordable, we want it to be secure so it is there when we need it and we want it generated in a way that does not harm the planet.

Whilst it is simplicity itself, I think that this bill probably does have some work to do. We know that dealing with the demand side of energy, rather than just the supply side, can deliver great outcomes for the community. In fact, the organisation ClimateWorks did a study three years ago and they basically calculated that dealing with the demand side could be the equivalent of taking two Hazelwood power stations out of action; in other words, dealing with the demand side had that corresponding decrease in the need for energy supply. So I think that demand management is absolutely critical in our challenge to decarbonise our economy and reduce climate change. It is a simple bill and, with those few words, the Greens will be supporting it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.