6.2 million tonnes CO2-e per year for five 1. What should the new VEET target be? Other (please specify a target and length): [Required if 'Other' selected] * 1a. Please outline why you prefer the Improving the energy efficiency of our buildings is target you identified, or why you one of the most cost-effective ways to cut selected "No response": Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency also creates jobs and delivers a range of health benefits. I support setting a Victorian Energy Efficiency Target that delivers maximum benefits to households, businesses and the wider Victorian economy. Modelling and subsequent analysis undertaken for the Review shows that maximum net benefits are delivered at a target of 6.9 Mt/yr CO2-e for a period of 5 years. The target should therefore be set at 6.9 Mt/yr for 5 years. However, the legislation should allow for the target to be reviewed upwards following the Climate Change Act Review (which will set an Emissions Reduction Target for Victoria), but not allow for downwards revision within the 5 year period. 2. Comments are invited on the A number of other benefits of energy efficiency modelling approach used to and greenhouse gas emission abatement activities determine the costs and benefits of have not been taken into account in the review the VEET scheme. Is there any modelling due to insufficient data. These include additional data or information that wider economic benefits such as: employment should be considered? growth direct savings to the government’s energy concessions budget and public health benefits of mitigating the risks of living in low-quality housing, particularly during extreme weather events such as heatwaves. Updated marginal coefficient 3. Which greenhouse gas coefficient should be used to quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by the VEET scheme? 3a. Please outline why you believe Not to big a concern but a high coefficient should this option is preferred, or why you be used as we use a lot of brown coal in generating electricity selected "No response": 4. The Department has valued The modelling has likely underestimated the greenhouse gas emissions reductions benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to attributed to the VEET scheme by Victoria, by using a of abatement’ value ‘cost (what it costs to reduce one tonne of greenhouse adopting a carbon valuation series
1. What should the new VEET target be? 6.2 million tonnes CO2-e per year for five Other (please specify a target and length): [Required if 'Other' selected] * 1a. Please outline why you prefer the target you identified, or why you selected "No response": Improving the energy efficiency of our buildings is one of the most cost-effective ways to cut Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency also creates jobs and delivers a range of health benefits. I support setting a Victorian Energy Efficiency Target that delivers maximum benefits to households, businesses and the wider Victorian economy. Modelling and subsequent analysis undertaken for the Review shows that maximum net benefits are delivered at a target of 6.9 Mt/yr CO2-e for a period of 5 years. The target should therefore be set at 6.9 Mt/yr for 5 years. However, the legislation should allow for the target to be reviewed upwards following the Climate Change Act Review (which will set an Emissions Reduction Target for Victoria), but not allow for downwards revision within the 5 year period. 2. Comments are invited on the modelling approach used to determine the costs and benefits of the VEET scheme. Is there any additional data or information that should be considered? A number of other benefits of energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission abatement activities have not been taken into account in the review modelling due to insufficient data. These include wider economic benefits such as: employment growth direct savings to the government’s energy concessions budget and public health benefits of mitigating the risks of living in low-quality housing, particularly during extreme weather events such as heatwaves. 3. Which greenhouse gas coefficient should be used to quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by the VEET scheme? Updated marginal coefficient 3a. Please outline why you believe this option is preferred, or why you selected "No response": Not to big a concern but a high coefficient should be used as we use a lot of brown coal in generating electricity 4. The Department has valued greenhouse gas emissions reductions attributed to the VEET scheme by adopting a carbon valuation series The modelling has likely underestimated the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to Victoria, by using a ‘cost of abatement’ value (what it costs to reduce one tonne of greenhouse
Moss-Christopher.docx