Meet the Chisholm Candidates! Future Energy Forum wrap

Find out what the Chisholm candidates said about climate and energy!

• Short on time? Check out our comparative candidate quotes pdf!
• Dive into the Facebook Album for images, quotes, links to expert argument and full candidate transcript as comments under the images as the event rolls through.
• You can also look at the agenda, meeting slide set and our Bluesky event thread.

A community forum to discuss the future of energy in Australia on March 18 was hosted by Chisholm Climate Action Network, working with Lighter Footprints. There was a full house at the Mt Waverley Youth Centre to interrogate energy policy ahead of the elections. Dave Hudspeth commented “perhaps a largely climate aware crowd but certainly a good mix of locals.” 

 

Summary – essential arguments raised about our energy future

AEMO/CSIRO renewables pathway (ALP) vs Frontier Economics seven reactors plan (LNP)

Transition pathways

AEMO

AEMO’s widely consulted Integrated System Plan 2024 lays out a clear plan to transition to clean energy including building transmission assets and long term storage which would be mostly funded by utilities and private investors.

• Coal has pretty much gone by early to mid 2030s, replaced by renewables and storage
• Smart two way grid needing lower transmission build out due to self generation and distributed generation
• Grid support full household and transport electrification, and expanded clean manufacturing and exports

Frontier Economics

In contrast Frontier Economics adds seven reactors, with construction times set at a very unrealistic 13 – 8 years and first power set to enter the grid at 2036.

• The modelling assumes the legal barriers will be overcome and allows no time for the complex planning, environmental impact assessment or community consultation. Climate Council Nuclear Submission pp 8-11:
• The cost figure is achieved by passing half of the costs onto the second half of an unrealistic fifty year time frame without major refurbishment.
• Of significance is that the grid the reactors are set to supply is constrained to around 260 TWh, not enough to support of electrification of households, businesses, transport and manufacturing.
• There is severe doubts about whether there is enough water to run the reactors especially in the nominated Queensland sites.
• The Smart Energy Council has concludedthat building seven nuclear reactors could cost “between $116-$600 billion of taxpayers’ dollars, whilst only providing 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix in 2050″
• AEMO’s definitive GenCost 2023/24 report concludes that nuclear is significantly more expensive to build and run than least cost renewables and storage (GenCost 23/24 Fig 0-3, p. xii).
• Nuclear is too expensive and slow to develop compared to renewables
• Nuclear will require government fundingbecause it is not commercially attractive

 

 

Framing of nuclear vs renewables – candidate arguments (ALP vs LNP)

Carina Garland MP

Carina is optimistic and hopeful about the clean energy transition, is assured of the 82% by 2030 clean energy target, and points to good, well paying jobs in clean energy, electrification and clean manufacturing sectors. The ALP has supported solar and electrification initiatives for social housing and apartments and hopes to do a lot more. She states that nuclear is too slow, too expensive and some methodology (SMRs) “do not exist”.

Katie Allen

Katie Allen talks of the LNP commitment to “double solar, double wind and triple batteries” and also is supportive of “an energy mx” including nuclear. Why would you not use every tool? She states that nuclear is a “fast” way to get to clean energy, and that net zero by 2050 is the essential yardstick. However what was not mentioned was Frontier’s modelling was based on a 54% cap, or that time for community consultation, legals, planning and environmental assessment was not included in the first power by 2036 projection that underlies the costings.

 

Future of energy forum in Mt Waverley

This is the first time a climate forum has been held in Mt Waverley, and the room was packed, with extra chairs having to be brought out – maybe 170-180 or so people, including several dozen organisers and staff supporting the event from community and climate action groups, and political parties. Guests were able discuss climate and energy at stalls around the hall, offering information and coreflutes, with opportunities to ask questions, sign petitions, volunteer and make donations.

 

The evening was well run and well received by the audience, with all candidates able to convey their thoughts on the future of energy in Australia.

 

 

 

Keynotes – opportunities from renewables and solving the energy equity challenges

The evening opened with an acknowledgement of country and engaging welcome from Jenny Smithers, Chisholm CAN and convenor of Lighter Footprints.

 

Keynote speakers Heidi Lee Douglas (Solar Citizens) and Peizhi Jiang (Renew Australia for All) spoke about their personal motivations and the objectives of their organisations in the climate movement. In Heidi’s case it is the impact of climate change on her young family and the clear benefits of solar energy in reducing household energy costs.

Key election ask from Solar Citizens, add battery storage to support for household solar

Heidi said that “Australia is now a home solar success story” with $25 billion plus “of our own private Aussie household money invested in rooftop solar”.  37% of homes (over four million) have solar across Australia, although Victoria is only at 28% at present.

“Home solar brings down bills for that home about $1200 a year, but it brings the bills down for everyone even if it’s not on your roof  – as it reduces energy prices during the day, flooding into the grid, outbidding coal and gas in the national energy auction.”

Heidi Lee Douglas, CEO, Solar Citizens

Heidi spoke about how the cost of installing solar and batteries should be made more affordable by extending and expanding rebates, asking for our political leaders to focus on working together to address this challenge.

Around 60% of Australians are locked out of the benefits of solar, they are renting or in appartments, strata or social housing. Solar Citizens has been advocating for energy equity for this 60% at both State and Federal policy level.

Successes include:

• $800m on solar and energy efficiency for social housing, with similar State policies including $112m for Victoria
• $1bn Household Energy Upgrades Fund (HEUF), with the CEFC assisting green loans for cheaper finance for solar and energy efficiency products
• National Vehicle Efficiency Standards has helped to improve the relative affordability of EVs and brining a bigger range to market, allowing more people to drive on solar.

There is real potential for leveraging solar and batteries (and greater energy efficiency) to benefit more people and the grid. David Hudspeth was impressed with the opportunities to manage evening peaks and grid demand from expanding solar and batteries, as well as lowering our energy bills. Heidi spoke of not only of these huge potential benefits of improving storage for the grid. Climate policy should focus on energy consumers and consider the four million Australians who already have solar on their roofs. 

Solar Citizens on nuclear

Heidi said “We at Solar Citizens are non partisan – but we are obligated to call out a bad policy for rooftop solar when we see it – nuclear is a threat to rooftop solar.”

“Nuclear has to be run 24/7 to be economically viable, it’s not dispatchable power –  just like coal.

We are concerned that rootfop solar will be switched off to make space for nuclear.

 

The cost of this is big for the consumer, losing the $1200 savings per year from solar, plus extra costs of nuclear on energy bills of an average $800 a year – adding another $2000 per year to many energy bills.”

Heidi Lee Douglas, CEO, Solar Citizens

Heidi said that Solar Citizens has “big questions about how nuclear will work with rooftop solar, and so far there has been no detail released by the Liberal party about how they will support rooftop solar in the energy system they are proposing.” Given that the highest solar producing postcard are largely Liberal Queensland electorates this should be of concern, as the sunn

This should be of a big concern to them, as what we call the sunniest neighbhourhoods in australia – the highest solar producing postcodes are largely liberal Queensland electorates – their base.

“Frontier Economics report they have based their nuclear policy on only allowing space for 54% of the grid from renewables which we will get to next year! So will the Liberal party cap more people getting solar on their roofs? 

 

What about that 60% of the population we are finding solutions for to get them access to rooftop solar energy ? Will they be permanently excluded from the cheapest, cleanest energy? If so, that just not fair.”

Heidi Lee Douglas, CEO, Solar Citizens

Peizhi Jiang working with Renew Australia for All coalition

Peizhi shared his experience as a renter, desiring to be part of the energy transition but having no influence on how his home is powered and suffering the effects of poor energy efficiency.

Peizhi feels a stronger democracy results in a stronger community.

 

Q1 We are at a crossroads – renewables or nuclear?

Four candidates for the upcoming federal election were invited to the forum: sitting MP Carina Garland (ALP), Dr Katie Allen (LIB), Tim Randall (GRN) and Kath Davies, recently selected candidate for Voices of Chisholm, VoC. Moderator Dr Chris Leung (Doctors for the Environment Australia, DEA) managed the question and answers; the first three questions were provided to the candidates in advance. 

The first question asked whether Australia would continue our progress on renewable energy from our current 40% to achieve the 2030 target of 82%, or would this be abandoned to implement the Liberal policy on nuclear energy? Candidates were also asked about their vision for the future of energy in Australia, and what would they do over the next term of government to achieve it. 

Kathy Davies – Independent

Kathy Davies (VoC) took the opportunity to introduce herself to the audience. Born and raised in the Latrobe Valley, Kath is an environmental engineer. She has seen the impact of political point scoring on communities. She is firmly committed to “Yes to Renewables, No to Nuclear”.

She feels Australia needs to follow the money and make responsible decisions regarding our energy future based on credible evidence: dispatchable power from a decentralised power system including solar, wind and pumped hydro, topped up with gas.

Nuclear is too expensive and too late to implement. If it is such a good idea, why wasn’t it done in the ten years of the previous Coalition government? Kathy would support changes to the current fossil fuel tax rules and eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

 

Katie Allen – Liberal

Katie Allen (LIB) is an advocate for the clean energy transition. She has attended several climate forums so far in the lead-up to the election. When the MP for Higgins, Katie contributed to the Coalition debate and commitment to net zero by 2050, changing the focus from “should we get there” to “how will we get there”, a significant change for the LNP. Katie feels the way to get there is an energy mix, including consideration of nuclear; she feels we will need nuclear to meet Australia’s energy needs in the next 30 – 50 years.

Katie personally supports implementation of nuclear energy; she feels it is a faster, cleaner way to achieve net zero by 2050.

 

Katie expressed her appreciation for being invited to participate, acknowledging many people in the room would not agree with her. She feels it is important to have mature discussions about all sides of the debate.

 

Carina Garland – Labor

Carina Garland (MP, ALP) strongly supports the transition to renewable energy. Carina outlined the progress made to date, as well as highlighting the significant challenges ahead. She supports investment in renewables and community batteries, building energy systems to keep communities and people healthy.

Renewables are the most cost effective form of energy; we can’t afford to undermine the progress made to date. The energy market is getting out of fossil fuels. We are on the right track; we need to keep going.

 

Tim Randall – Greens

Tim Randall (GRN) put the critical next five years in the context of 60,000 years of stewardship by indigenous peoples. He strongly supports electrification, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies to preserving native forests and facilitating a just transition for forest workers. Burning coal and gas for energy causes climate change; we need to stop if we are to have any hope of fixing it. At the same time, we need energy security.

The world is shifting away from fossil fuels; investments in Australian technology can lead the world in this transition. Worldwide, renewable energy generation is currently equivalent to six nuclear power stations. Before nuclear energy is available in Australia, at least two billion tonnes of carbon emissions would be released. Tim supports cost effective, sustainable, responsible climate solutions which honour 60,000 years of stewardship.

 

Set question two – energy equity

The second question addressed the cost of living crisis and the opportunity for household cost savings with rooftop solar and energy efficiency upgrades. At the same time, these investments are out of reach for many. Renew Australia for All has proposed the Energy Bill Savings Plan, a $5bn investment to support low income households and renters so they can be part of the shift to renewables. Each candidate was asked if they would support this proposal.

Katie Allen (LIB) was not familiar with the proposal but knows the cost of energy needs to be reduced. She feels getting the economy back on track will allow people to afford investments in solar and energy efficiency upgrades.

All other candidates were supportive of assisting renters and low income households with financial access to the renewable energy transition, whether through the Energy Bill Savings Plan or other means.

Question Three – climate impacts and priority responses 

The third question on notice was about the impacts of climate change on our Pacific Island neighbours and around Australia. Candidates were asked what climate impacts concern them most, and what priority actions would they take to address them if elected.

 

The candidates mentioned concerns about health and education impacts when people are displaced due to climate emergencies, national security concerns, young children having lived their entire lives through the hottest 10 years in history, drought, coral reef collapse, ocean acidification, disruption of civil society and increasing incidence of malaria throughout the world. Carina Garland (ALP) noted Australia’s leadership role in the Pacific and the need to take action; Tim Randall (GRN) outlined his party’s climate policies, and Kath Davies (VoC) will support addressing root causes based on factual evidence. 

Audience Questions

The moderator Dr Chris Leung (DEA) then asked questions posed by the audience via Slido.

Question One – case for or against nuclear 

Several questions were raised about nuclear energy; the case for and against nuclear, why is it too late for nuclear energy in Australia and the substantial water requirements for nuclear power generation on the driest continent on the planet. CSIRO and AEMO reports were referenced, stating nuclear energy would increase the cost of energy and is not needed.

 

Tim Randall, Kath Davies and Carina Garland all indicated nuclear is not the right answer for Australia for any number of reasons. Katie Allen challenged the validity of the CSIRO and AEMO reports; they did not take a system-wide approach and renewable energy “is not working” to reduce carbon emissions. Tim Randall quoted Matt Canavan in his admission that “nuclear won’t cut it, it is a political fix”.

 

Question Two – is it too late to go nuclear?

 

 

 

Question Three – impact of fossil fuel donations on policy

Candidates were asked about political donations from the fossil fuel industry, and how they would constrain policy.

Carina Garland (ALP) stated individual MPs can choose who they accept funding from; she says she does not accept fossil fuel funding or any ‘freebies’, Katie Allen (Lib) agreed that the LNP accepted [fossil] political donations, of note is the $500,000 from Hancock Prospecting detailed above. Liberal and Labor politicians all benefit from centralised party organisations and assets that use fossil money.

However candidates indicated the need for integrity and trust in politics; we should have a common basis for moving forward together. There is a need to get big corporate donations and their influence out of politics. Most of their donations come from individuals in modest amounts. Katie Allen (LIB) noted that politics is a tough job; elected representatives need to represent everyone in the community.

 

Question Four – supporting solar and battery uptake

 

 

 

Question Five – Ruling out new coal and gas

The final question was whether each candidate would rule out the approval of coal and gas developments. Carina Garland (ALP) noted that each application was assessed on a case-by-case basis, but there is need for stronger environmental laws which she committed to advocate for. Katie Allen (Liberals) flatly refused to rule out expanding coal and gas, and both Tim Randall (Greens) and Kathy Davies (Ind) agreed that  coal and gas approvals must be stopped.

 

Dr Chris Leung (DEA) wrapped up the forum with some final comments from his perspective. Climate change affects every system in the human body. There is room for optimism, but next few years are critical: in our lifetime we can turn this around, but we need to act now.

Many thanks to the Chisholm Climate Action Network for hosting this informative event.