Other 1. What should the new VEET target be? Other (please specify a target and Minimum of 6.9 million tonnes per year of length): [Required if 'Other' selected] * carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt/yr CO2‐e) for a period of 5 years. energy efficiency is important to help 1a. Please outline why you prefer the target you identified, or why you households and industry to reduce their energy selected "No response": consumption and thus cut greenhouse emissions. 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 6.9Mt/yr for 5 years. 2. Comments are invited on the A number of other benefits of energy efficiency modelling approach used to determine and greenhouse gas emission abatement the costs and benefits of the VEET activities have not been taken into account in the review modelling due to insufficient data. scheme. Is there any additional data or information that should be considered? These include wider economic benefits such as: employment growth direct savings to the energy concessions budget and government’s 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 No response should be used to quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by the VEET scheme? 3a. Please outline why you believe this option is preferred, or why you selected "No response": 4. The Department has valued A social cost of carbon is better than an cost of greenhouse gas emissions reductions abatement value as it considers a community wide response. These economic damages can attributed to the VEET scheme by adopting a carbon valuation series that take various forms including decreased was produced by the Federal Climate agricultural yields, harm to human health, Change Authority as part of its 2014 property damages from increased flood risk and Targets and Progress Review.Please lower worker productivity. outline whether you think this approach is appropriate for valuing greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the period 2016 to 2050? No 5. Is there a case to exclude any
1. What should the new VEET target be? Other Other (please specify a target and length): [Required if 'Other' selected] * Minimum of 6.9 million tonnes per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt/yr CO2‐e) for a period of 5 years. 1a. Please outline why you prefer the target you identified, or why you selected "No response": energy efficiency is important to help households and industry to reduce their energy consumption and thus cut greenhouse emissions. 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 6.9Mt/yr for 5 years. 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? No response 3a. Please outline why you believe this option is preferred, or why you selected "No response": 4. The Department has valued greenhouse gas emissions reductions attributed to the VEET scheme by adopting a carbon valuation series that was produced by the Federal Climate Change Authority as part of its 2014 Targets and Progress Review.Please outline whether you think this approach is appropriate for valuing greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the period 2016 to 2050? A social cost of carbon is better than an cost of abatement value as it considers a community wide response. These economic damages can take various forms including decreased agricultural yields, harm to human health, property damages from increased flood risk and lower worker productivity. 5. Is there a case to exclude any No
Gleeson-Regina.docx