Additional Comments - Senator Matthew Canavan

1.1The Chair’s report makes sensible recommendations that would improve the governance and oversight of Australia’s energy regulatory frameworks, and for this reason I support them.

1.2However, Australia’s energy system is failing on a scale that befits a much more radical rethink of how our energy system is planned, regulated and run.

1.3Despite Australia having the largest energy reserves per person in the world, Australian families and businesses are suffering from an unprecedented increase in energy prices. It has not always been this way. Just a generation ago, Australia had some of the cheapest energy prices in the world. We now have some of the highest.

1.4Energy price rises are feeding into Australia’s record inflation rates as the cost of energy affects everything from food, to building materials to transport. Just in the past few years Australia has lost its last remaining urea fertiliser and plastics industries. These materials are crucial for Australia’s farming industry, around half of our food is produced using urea, and water tanks and poly pipes are all made from the plastics that used to be made here. Australia’s energy crisis is now impacting our food security too.

1.5The most underwhelming aspect of this inquiry has been the disinterested approach from the government and regulators to get to the bottom of why Australians are paying so much for energy than other countries with similar energy endowments (like the United States). Australia’s energy policy decision makers have adopted a set of “net zero” blinkers that seem to blind them from any other distraction than the obsessive pursuit of a net zero emissions agenda, and related renewable energy targets.

1.6My recommendations aim to remove these blinkers and let sunlight invade the energy policy decision-making space. Australians struggling to pay their power bills deserve to know the true cost of the radical climate and renewable energy policies that have been adopted by their governments. The fact that a proper cost benefit study of the net zero emissions was not conducted before its adoption is one of the greatest policy making failures in Australian history.

Making the Integrated System Plan better

1.7The greatest demonstration of the close-minded approach to energy policy making is AEMO’s Integrated System Plan (ISP). This plan began as a good-faith effort to improve transmission planning decisions which, given the natural monopoly nature of transmission lines, clearly require a degree of coordination from central agencies.

1.8Unfortunately, the ISP has morphed to yet another propaganda exercise for climate targets. Under repeated questioning in this Committee, AEMO’s CEO, Mr Daniel Westerman, admitted that the ISP does not estimate whether renewable energy is the cheapest form of generating electricity. Instead, the ISP estimates the “least cost pathway” of meeting various government targets, including the Federal Government’s 82 per cent renewable target by 2030. As AEMO stated to the Committee:

Senator CANAVAN: So in no way can the ISP be characterised as any cost-benefit analysis of the decision to impose certain carbon budgets, net zero targets, renewable energy targets or any other energy policy settings that are an input to your modelling?

Ms York: No, we're only permitted, within the framework that we have as set out in the rules, to take those policies as set out in the target statement as an input and then to work out what is the lowest cost way to get to net zero by 2050, which every state has included in the target statement, and the other range of policies that are included—what's the lowest cost pathway given those parameters.[1]

1.9In other words, the use of renewable energy is not the output of the ISP model “choosing” it as the cheapest option. The predominant use of renewable energy is built into the ISP model as an assumption.

1.10Despite this admission, Mr Westerman has often implied that renewable energy is the cheapest without reference to the caveat that its conclusion is restricted by government-imposed targets. For example, on 28 June 2024, Mr Westerman told Sky News Australia that:

What this plan lays out is obviously the lowest cost pathway to meet Australia’s energy needs, as our coal fired power stations retire, and as our energy needs grow. You point out the lowest cost is renewable energy backed up with what we call firming, so batteries and storage, but ultimately backed up by gas, flexible gas powered generation.[2]

1.11Mr Westerman presents his lowest cost pathway estimates as simply done to “meet our energy needs” without reference to the fact these energy needs are constrained and set by strict government targets in his modelling. It would serve the Australian public debate about energy much better if our energy regulators could be more accurate in their public statements about their own work.

1.12These statements appear to be naively believed by Australian Energy Ministers who either clearly do not read the full ISP or wilfully distort its findings. For example, in December 2023, Minister Chris Bowen issued a media release about the Draft Integrated System Plan titled “Energy Market Operator shows firmed renewables the path for a cleaner, cheaper, more reliable grid” in which he said:

Today’s updated draft energy plan from AEMO reiterates what we already know, firmed renewable energy is not just clean, it’s the cheapest way to ensure a reliable grid, Minister Bowen said.

After ten years of neglect, the task to build our modern grid that supports household and businesses with reliable energy as aging coal exits and solar surges is as urgent as ever.

While today’s draft forecasts 90% of the increasingly unreliable coal fleet is likely to retire by 2035 – the LNP’s only semblance of a plan is a technology that by their own admission will not be commercial before then – risking energy security for households and industry across the country.

It’s past time for Dutton and O’Brien to be honest with Australians about how they plan to replace the 90% of aging, and increasingly unreliable coal-fired power generation forecast to close over the next decade - given they have called for a pause on all new renewables and transmission.[3]

1.13Minister Bowen made no reference in his media release to the fact the closure timeline of coal fired power stations is directly impacted by the government climate and renewable energy targets assumed in the model. The ISP makes this clear when it says:

For any given scenario, the jurisdictional carbon budgets are first imposed onto the SSLT, where the carbon budget is met by influencing the retirement timing of fossil-fuel generation.[4]

1.14This was also confirmed by AEMO at the Committee’s hearings:

Senator DUNIAM: With respect to coal—I think it was touched on before—you have asset owners and state governments working together. There is the underwriting of coal assets to prolong life. I think that puts the ISP at odds with reality. How do you factor that in? How do you deal with that divergence?

Ms York: It's a good question. The emissions reduction is what largely drives the profile of coal closures.[5]

1.15It would be helpful for Australia’s public policy debate if Energy Ministers could read important documents like the ISP and properly represent them in public debate.

1.16Still, it would be even more helpful if the ISP could contemplate a broader range of scenarios so that more information is provided to the Australian public about the relative cost of different government policy interventions. Over recent iterations, the ISP has been more constrained by government targets and especially increasingly ambitious and strict renewable energy targets. For example, the Centre for Independent Studies has shown how in 2020 the ISP contemplated renewable shares of between around 45 and 60 per cent. The latest ISP is constrained to only consider renewable energy shares of over 82 per cent.[6]

1.17In effect, the ISP now provides much less useful information about relative energy costs because it simply does not evaluate the costs of using different energy types. This has real world consequences when the ISP is then used to justify billions of dollars in new transmission lines that would likely not be justified but for government imposed renewable energy targets.

1.18Many organisations supported expanding the range of scenarios considered by the ISP. For example, the Australian Energy Council said that:

We believe modelling an “efficient development of the power system” that satisfies the NEO requires a baseline scenario that is the best estimate from which other scenarios can be compared with. Given the scale, cost and pace of the energy transition, AEMO should include a scenario of what it thinks is likely and make this available to stakeholders and the public at large.[7]

1.19This was supported by the Centre for Independent Studies:

When constructing scenarios of plausible futures, this positive effect of policies on the likelihood of outcomes must be considered. However, government policies are not the sole determinant of plausibility. Other factors constraining the construction of new renewable energy projects — such as workforce constraints, social license and grid connections — must also be considered alongside government targets when forming plausible scenarios. The assumption that all government policy will inevitably be successful effectively negates the usefulness of constructing scenarios to span the likely outcomes of an uncertain future.[8]

1.20Dr Bongers, from Gamma Energy Technology, also raised the issue of the ISP not considering all types of energy solutions:

My issue with the ISP is the question that they have asked in the first place and chosen to model. Why have they restricted the technologies to wind, solar, batteries and gas backup? What about carbon capture and storage? What about looking at nuclear? Even though it is currently illegal, they could still do it as a scenario. Dr Barr and I have both looked at nuclear and CCS in terms of what it could bring to the table in terms of value.[9]

1.21AEMO claims that the National Electricity Rules prevent them from considering a wider range of energy scenarios. There is some debate about whether these rules are binding on AEMO.

1.22Notwithstanding that debate, it would make sense for the National Electricity Rules to be amended to require AEMO to model a range of scenarios that shed light on the relative costs of different electricity mixes. This should include at the very least a “baseline” scenario in which there are no government policies to impose arbitrary carbon budgets or targets for particular fuel types. Modelling such a baseline is essential to understand the true cost of government interventions.

1.23Australian governments should amend the National Electricity Rules to clarify that AEMO should run a range of scenarios in its Integrated Systems Plan including:

a baseline scenario with no government carbon emissions or fuel type restrictions (including no ban on nuclear);

a scenario which only models the impact of the Commonwealth Government's carbon emissions targets as outlined in its Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement; and

a scenario that includes other government policies to reduce emissions or to favour or penalise certain fuel types.

1.24AEMO should report the relative impact of each of these scenarios on wholesale and (where possible) retail electricity prices.

A proper cost-benefit study of net zero emissions

1.25The Chair’s report identifies the urgent need for an independent sector-wide review. It has been over ten years since the Productivity Commission undertook its review into Electricity Network Regulation. Given the deficiencies in the current energy planning approach, however, a broader review is required.

1.26In evidence to the committee, Mr Daniel Westerman, Chief Executive Officer of AEMO, explained that the ISP requires AEMO to find, within the parameters of the meeting the government’s net zero targets by 2050, ‘the lowest cost pathway for meeting reliability and security of the power system at each point through to 2050’.[10]

1.27In further questioning, I sought clarification of the impact of not-zero modelling on future costs:

So, in no way can the ISP be characterised as any cost-benefit analysis of the decision to impose certain carbon budgets, net zero targets, renewable energy targets or any other energy policy settings that are an input to your modelling?[11]

1.28In response, Ms Merryn York, Executive General Manager, AEMO stated:

No, we're only permitted, within the framework that we have as set out in the rules, to take those policies as set out in the target statement as an input and then to work out what is the lowest cost way to get to net zero by 2050, which every state has included in the target statement, and the other range of policies that are included—what's the lowest cost pathway given those parameters.[12]

1.29It is shocking that a policy of such significance as a net zero emissions target could be adopted without a simple calculation of its costs and benefits. A net zero emissions target requires fundamental change to almost all aspects of human life: how we grow our food, how we make our goods, how we build our homes and how we move around. The goal is to do all of this in a generation. A pace of change that would be unprecedented in all of human existence.

1.30Unlike Australia, New Zealand at least did conduct a proper cost benefit analysis of its adoption of a net zero emissions target. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research found that net zero emissions by 2040 would reduce the size of the New Zealand economy by 10 to 20 per cent.[13] In Australian terms that would amount to a $200 billion to $400 billion annual impact. Employment would fall by 2 to 4 per cent. If that happened in Australia 200,000 to 400,000 people would lose their jobs.

1.31Depending on the development of different technologies, wages would reduce by 8 to 28 per cent. In Australian terms, that would mean a $7000 to $24,000 annual hit to an average worker.

1.32Of course, the economic impact on Australia would be bigger given that we have larger coal and gas industries than New Zealand.

1.33This modelling showed that to reach net zero emissions, New Zealand would require an “implied” or “shadow” carbon price of NZ$272 per tonne, or A$246 at today’s exchange rates.

1.34During this inquiry, AEMO admitted that their modelling concluded that a shadow carbon price of A$262 per tonne was needed to generate a net zero emissions outcome. Given the similar estimates of these figures, net zero emissions is likely to have just as similar, large negative impact on Australian living standards.

1.35Any policy that would reduce average Australian wages by between $7000 and $24,000 per year deserves close scrutiny.

1.36The Government should add to the proposed Productivity Commission inquiry a cost-benefit study of its net zero emissions by 2050 target. This study should look at the impact of the target on the entire Australian economy including how higher electricity prices and stricter carbon emissions target could impact the viability of individual Australian manufacturing industries.

Removing the nuclear ban

1.37Australia is one of just a few countries in the world that ban nuclear power. Of the 20 richest nations in the world only three do not have nuclear power: Australia, Saudi Arabia and Italy. Saudi Arabia is building a nuclear power station and Italy gets much of its imported electricity from France, where over 60 per cent of the electricity is produced by nuclear power.[14]

1.38Australians face soaring energy costs, record levels of hardship, small business insolvencies, and growing uncertainty under a renewables-only energy plan.

1.39Frontier Economics have recently estimated that modifying the ISP to include nuclear (and extend the life of coal fired power stations) could reduce the cost of supplying electricity by $263 billion - a 44 per cent reduction. Curiously, the Australian Government has approached this modelling with much more scepticism than the modelling it receives about its own plans. Whatever the arguments about particular economic modelling approaches, the Frontier Economics works shows that it is mad to maintain a nuclear power ban based on an argument about economic cost alone.[15]

1.40Furthermore, the current ISP fails to properly consider the enormous increase in electricity demand that may come from the growth in data centres.

1.41In the 1990s, Australia’s nuclear ban did not impose significant costs because we relied on coal and gas fired power. However, our coal fired power fleet is now old, and governments have not supported constructing new ones because of concerns over climate change. While there was never a justification for banning nuclear energy, this ban is now an accident waiting to happen if we try to move our energy system to one almost completely dependent on the weather.[16]

1.42Given the cost blowouts that are occurring on major projects like Snowy Hydro 2.0 and the Battery of the Nation, Australia should diversify its sources of energy. Nuclear power would reduce the need for large storage or transmission projects.

1.43As the Australian Energy Council said at the Committee’s hearings:

Senator GHOSH: One of the suggestions that emerged from testimony yesterday was that the removal of legal prohibitions on the nuclear industry in Australia would offer a benefit to the Australian energy system. From the Australian Energy Council's point of view, is there industry interest in developing and investing in nuclear power in Australia?

Mr Feeney: ... If policymakers were to change that approach at some point in the future, I think there would be interest in exploring it. Generally speaking, killing off options and taking options off the table in an environment where there's uncertainty over the next 10 or 20 years isn't advisable. Our perspective is very much a technology neutral perspective.[17]

1.44In giving evidence to the committee, Dr David Carland, Executive Director, Australian Resources Development Pty Ltd stated:

My first major issue is that, under the national electricity objective, the ISP is required to make sure that renewable energy targets are met—essentially carbon dioxide emissions. The ISP assumes that this can be met only by firmed renewables. No other option is looked at...In particular, there's no analysis of the nuclear option, which is another way of getting to low emissions. The reason it is not analysed—it is directly said by AEMO—is that the technology is banned. I think this is a highly disingenuous statement. Because a particular technology is banned doesn't stop us from analysing it. It hasn't stopped another committee analysing it here. It hasn't stopped the CSIRO analysing it here. It hasn't stopped AUKUS in the investigation of nuclear submarines. I think that is a very limp reason not to investigate nuclear.[18]

1.45Given the scale of Australia’s energy crisis it is unwise for us to rule options out. Australia’s prohibition on nuclear energy is out of step with developments in the rest of the world and should be removed.

1.46The Australian Government should remove the ban on nuclear power.

Ending the radical 82 per cent renewable energy target

1.47The 82 per cent renewable target is resulting in a rushed transition and significant impact on regional communities that are bearing the brunt of our push to a net zero economy by 2050.

1.48The CIS noted that were the 82 per cent renewable energy target not been a binding constraint that the Humelink project would not be advanced today.

1.49Frontier Economics compiled a database of all the actionable and future transmission projects in the current ISP. These transmission projects amount to a total cost of between $42 and $66 billion.

1.50It is unclear how many of these projects would not be required or could be deferred if the 82 per cent renewable energy target was ended. However, given the evidence provided in regard to Humelink it is probable that billions of dollars on transmission projects could be spent to meet the renewable energy target. These extra costs would be passed on to consumers in higher electricity bills.

1.51Evidence to this Committee supported the view that there is too much emphasis on transmission investments in the current ISP.

1.52For example, Professor Bruce Mountain described AEMO as employing ‘a biased counter-factual trick’, stating:

AEMO has done this for example by assuming that all Victorian brown coal generators would have closed by 2028, so as to generate the “benefit” of keeping them open if their transmission project was developed. But of course, all Victorian coal generators will not be closed by 2028![19]

1.53Professor Mountain was also critical of what he saw as a bias towards transmission planning under the ISP:

In addition to the inevitable subjectivity of optimisation modelling, another layer of subjectivity (and opportunity for manipulation) arises in the process of establishing the costs and benefits of transmission augmentations. Through our reviews of AEMO’s ISPs and of transmission network services providers’ (TNSPs) regulatory investment tests we documented seven “tricks” that AEMO and network services providers can and do play to get their cost-benefit assessments to deliver the results they want.[20]

1.54As a consequence, these projects are being rushed, with communities being impacted by them feeling ignored by the planning processes that are undertaken with the community groups before the committee raising significant concerns about how they were being treated by AEMO.

Lots has been reported and lodged as complaints to AEMO. It has then gone to Andrew Dyer because it hasn't been actioned. It has been disappointing and completely shocking. Everyone has had an experience run by our own government that they couldn't believe would be part of their life.[21] (…)

Ms O’Sullivan: They asked that they deal with them by email and not be on their property, but then they would come back.

Senator CANAVAN: They would come anyway even though they were asked not to?

Ms O'Sullivan: Yes. People now have cameras up so they can see.

Ms McIntyre: People are frightened.

Ms O'Sullivan: They are frightened, yes.[22]

1.55The rushed rollout to meet an arbitrary 2030 is resulting in renewable companies not building the social licence in the communities where the infrastructure is being built. Without buy in from the local communities we are further isolating and disenfranchising people from engagement in government. Communities do not deserve to see their natural environment and amenity destroyed to meet an arbitrary target made for political reasons.

1.56The Australian Government should drop its target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030.

The need for a technologically neutral capacity scheme

1.57Over this summer, the shortage of power has hit home in average Australian households. Families in Sydney have been told not to use dishwashers, and almost every week brings new fears of widespread power outages when the weather does not line up with the needs of our now weather-dependent system.

1.58The risks of these shortages have been evident for some time. For example, in 2022, the then Energy Security Board warned that:

While 5 GW of coal capacity has already announced it will close by 2030, as much as 14 GW may become uneconomic by that time. 14 GW represents around one-third of the NEM’s dispatchable capacity, a significant amount to exit over an eight year period. Replacement would require the equivalent of another Snowy 2.0 to be connected every year from now until 2030.[23]

1.59Since that time, the Federal Government has announced the establishment of a Capacity Investment Scheme which is aimed to provide incentives for reliable power sources to be built. However, this scheme goes against the recommendations of the Energy Security Board which were to create a technologically neutral scheme:

...a mechanism should be technologically neutral while recognising the rapid pace of change, noting there are design principles which relate to these criteria that will be addressed during the process.[24]

1.60The Government’s Capacity Investment Scheme instead restricts support to “renewable” sources of supply and explicitly rules out support for coal and gas power to keep the lights on.

1.61Many submissions and witnesses to this inquiry raised the importance of returning to a technologically neutral approach. For example, Mr David Feeney, General Manager of the Australian Energy Council, said that:

Our perspective is very much a technology neutral perspective … It is also worth making the point that you want a mixture of different generation types. They have different economic and technical characteristics. This idea that you should just have one or two generation types I think introduces more risk into the system than is required.[25]

1.62Ms Kylie Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering told the committee that:

…it is important to take a whole-of-system approach…we need to move from an incremental to a transformational approach to planning and executing our energy present and our energy future. We need to move from what's been to date a very piecemeal approach to energy planning and execution because of the various legislation, regulation, market forces and different jurisdictions that have been involved. The opportunity here for Australia is to take a strategic and holistic approach and to actually set a standard... We are technology neutral. Our stance is that, however we get to a low-carbon, net zero, reliable energy grid, we're here to discuss it…to understand what the options are and what the implications might be.[26]

1.63The ESB rightly pointed out that “one primary consideration is that variable renewable energy (VRE) is variable in its output, based on the weather. Because electricity supply and demand must remain precisely in balance in real time, VRE must be complemented and backed up by ‘dispatchable’ capacity providers that can output electricity on demand when VRE generation is low.[27]

1.64The current ISP ignores this very point. The ESB pointed to the Draft 2022 ISP Step Change that “forecasts the NEM will require approximately 60 GW of dispatchable capacity in 2050, and significant further investment in transmission, to maintain reliability in a VRE-based system. There is much that could go wrong if the resources required to keep our system reliable and affordable are not built in a timely manner to replace existing assets. Existing assets, each of which can represent a significant proportion of generation in their region, might close before replacement capacity is in place. A single coal generation facility can account for as much as a third of a state’s power needs. After an abrupt closure, price impacts can be similarly substantial – wholesale prices in Victoria jumped 85 per cent following the sudden closure of the Hazelwood power station before any replacement capacity could be built. The economic viability of many coal generators is under increasing pressure due to ongoing investment in VRE and rising fuel costs. As capacity factors and margins fall, there is an increased risk of the disorderly exit of these facilities, without the ability to plan for and construct replacement capacity.[28]

1.65The Australian Government should amend the terms of its Capacity Investment Scheme to be technologically neutral, so it is aligned with the recommendations of previous energy inquiries.

1.66The Australian Government should expand its Capacity Investment Scheme to include all types of power, including coal, gas and nuclear.

Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan

Nationals Senator for Queensland

Footnotes

[1]Senator Matthew Canavan and Ms Merryn York, Executive General Manager, System Design, AEMO, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2024, p. 5.

[2]Renewables are ‘lowest cost’ of energy: AEMO CEO, https://www.skynews.com.au/business/energy/renewables-are-lowest-cost-of-energy-aemo-ceo/video/2d7b6938ffe73aed7687d413b3c1d07f, (accessed 19 December 2024)

[3]The Hon Chris Bowen MP, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Energy Market Operator shows firmed renewables the path for a cleaner, cheaper, more reliable grid, 15 December 2023, https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/energy-market-operator-shows-firmed-renewables-path-cleaner-cheaper-more-reliable-grid (accessed 19 December 2024)

[4]Australian Energy Market Operator, ISP Methodology, June 2023, p. 47, isp-methodology_june-2023.pdf, (accessed 18 December 2024).

[5]Senator Duniam and Ms Merryn York, Executive General Manager, System Design, AEMO, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2024, p. 25.

[6]Centre for Independent Studies, Submission 3, p. 8.

[7]Australian Energy Council, Submission 2, p. 4.

[8]Centre for Independent Studies, Submission 3, p. 3.

[9]Dr Geoffrey Bongers, Director, Gamma Energy Technology, Committee Hansard, 29 October 2024, p.32.

[10]Mr Daniel Westerman, Chief Executive Officer, AEMO, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2024, p. 4.

[11]Senator Matthew Canavan, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2024, p. 5.

[12]Ms Merryn York, Executive General Manager, System Design, AEMO, Committee Hansard, 23 October 2024, p. 5.

[13]NZIER, Economic impact analysis of 2050 emissions targets : A dynamic Computable General Equilibrium analysis, 19 June 2018, https://www.nzier.org.nz/news/key-results-from-economic-modelling-of-2050-emissions-targets

[14]Coalition Senators' Dissenting Report, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022, August 2023.

[15]The Hon Peter Dutton MP, Leader of the Opposition, Dutton, Littleproud, O’Brien – Media Release – A Cheaper, Cleaner, and More Consistent Energy Plan for Australia, 13 December 2024, https://www.peterdutton.com.au/dutton-littleproud-obrien-media-release-a-cheaper-cleaner-and-more-consistent-energy-plan-for-australia/ (accessed 19 December 2024).

[16]Coalition Senators' Dissenting Report, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee,, Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022, August 2023.

[17]Senator Gosh and Mr David Feeney, General Manager, Wholesale and Environment, Australian Energy Council, Committee Hansard, 30 October 2024, p. 5.

[18]Dr David Carland, Executive Director, Australian Resources Development Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 30 October 2024, p. 20.

[19]Professor Bruce Mountain, Submission 8, p. 8.

[20]Professor Bruce Mountain, Submission 8, p. 8.

[21]Ms Cindy O’Sullivan, Wallaloo and Gre District Alliance Incorporated, Committee Hansard, 30October 2024, p. 16.

[22]Senator Canavan, Ms Cindy O’Sullivan, Wallaloo and Gre District Alliance Incorporated, MsMarcia McIntyre, Executive, Wallaloo and Gre District Alliance Incorporated, Committee Hansard, 30 October 2024, p. 17.

[23]Energy Security Board, Capacity mechanismHigh-level Design Paper, p. 9, June 2022, https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/Capacity%20mechanism%20high-level%20design%20consultation%20paper.pdf (accessed 19 December 2024)

[24]Energy Security Board, Capacity mechanismHigh-level Design Paper, p. 4, June 2022, https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/Capacity%20mechanism%20high-level%20design%20consultation%20paper.pdf (accessed 19 December 2024)

[25]Mr David Feeney, General Manager, Wholesale and Environment, Australian Energy Council, Committee Hansard, 30 October 2024, p. 5.

[26]Ms Kylie Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Committee Hansard, 31 October 2024, p. 60.

[27]Energy Security Board, Capacity mechanism High-level Design Paper, p. 8, June 2022, https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/Capacity%20mechanism%20high-level%20design%20consultation%20paper.pdf (accessed 19 December 2024)

[28]Energy Security Board, Capacity mechanism High-level Design Paper, p. 8, June 2022, https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/Capacity%20mechanism%20high-level%20design%20consultation%20paper.pdf (accessed 19 December 2024)