plus Created with Sketch. ! arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up Asset 9Asset 7Asset 2 Group 2 Created with Sketch. Rectangle 11 Copy 4 Created with Sketch. Asset 6 close Asset 5 Icon/news/default Asset 20 arrow Created with Sketch. edit Group Created with Sketch. Icon/Learning/Active Icon/Learning/Inactive Shape Asset 10 instagram linkedin Asset 8 Icon/news/default menu send-2 Created with Sketch. Asset 3 pin Asset 14 search share Asset 15Asset 16Asset 19 twitter Asset 11

Clean energy and storage investment the priority in capacity mechanism debate

The Clean Energy Council has responded to the Energy Security Board’s (ESB) high-level design paper for a capacity mechanism, outlining the clean energy industry’s concerns with the proposed capacity mechanism, suggesting a range of ways the scheme could be more effectively implemented, and proposing a package of alternative reforms and policies that industry believes could accelerate investment in new clean energy generation and capacity.

“We welcome the ESB’s acknowledgement that the rapid pace of change in the National Electricity Market makes it critical to bring forward investment in renewable energy, storage and transmission to reduce cost and maintain a reliable energy supply for consumers,” said Clean Energy Council Chief Executive, Kane Thornton.

“Clean energy investors’ primary concerns with the proposed capacity mechanism relate to its inherent complexity, the long duration that it would take to design and implement the mechanism, and the fundamental challenge for any single mechanism to both facilitate the managed exit of existing generation and incentivise new generation,” said Thornton.

These challenges create significant industry concern that a capacity mechanism could in fact further undermine investment signals for new clean energy generation at a time when we need to rapidly accelerate investment in renewable energy, energy storage and transmission infrastructure.

We acknowledge that some of these concerns may be addressed through the detailed design of the capacity mechanism. On that basis, we welcome the ESB’s acknowledgment of the need for policy makers to provide clear direction in relation to carbon constraints in the mechanism. Either excluding coal and gas generation from the scheme or applying an emissions intensity factor could help to address this risk of undermining investment signals for new capacity.

While the ESB has stated its intent to have the mechanism operational by 1 July 2025, past experience shows that such a fundamental market redesign will take at least 10 years to be completed.

The clean energy industry will continue to work closely and collaboratively with the ESB to explore the detailed design of a capacity mechanism and the extent to which these concerns can be addressed.

However, the industry believes that there is also a range of more effective alternatives or measures that could complement any future capacity mechanisms and would give more immediate confidence to investors in new clean energy generation or energy storage.

These measures include a capacity reserve, targeted and transparent measures to manage fossil fuel exits, refinement to the recently introduced retailer reliability obligation or stronger policy support for clean energy generation.

In addition, a storage target could be rolled out quickly to provide the firming capacity needed to complement variable renewable generation and supply crucial system services such as system strength and inertia. Storage can also drastically improve the economics of transmission by acting as a ‘shock absorber’ that allows much more power to flow across the grid to consumers.

“If Australia is to achieve its recently increased emissions reduction target, it is imperative that we accelerate the deployment of renewable generation immediately. After a decade of inaction that has already left us way behind where we should be, Australia can’t afford to waste any more time on trying to fundamentally redesign the market. These more immediate reforms will help drive much needed investment while avoiding the protracted debate and complicated design of a capacity mechanism that brings with it significant inherent risks,” said Thornton.

Visit the Clean Energy Council website to read our full submission on the high-level design of the ESB’s capacity mechanism.


For more information or to arrange an interview, contact:

Matt Hadley
Clean Energy Council
[email protected]

+61 435 545 771