Other 1. What should the new VEET target be? Other (please specify a target and 7 million tonnes per year for five years. length): [Required if 'Other' selected] * 1a. Please outline why you prefer the Your own modelling suggests a higher target is target you identified, or why you preferable both for households and the economy as selected "No response": a whole. 2. Comments are invited on the We need modelling to take account of broad modelling approach used to economic benefits such as employment, savings to the energy concessions budget and public health determine the costs and benefits of the VEET scheme. Is there any benefits additional data or information that should be considered? 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 No problem with existing methodology this option is preferred, or why you selected "No response": 4. The Department has valued The modelling underestimates the benefits of greenhouse gas emissions reductions reducing greenhouse gas emissions by using a ‘cost attributed to the VEET scheme by of abatement’ value instead of a cost of ‘social carbon’ value. The United States uses a value of adopting a carbon valuation series that was produced by the Federal $37 per ton of greenhouse gas abatement to guide Climate Change Authority as part of energy policy decision-making. This is its 2014 Targets and Progress significantly higher than the 2015 values for carbon Review.Please outline whether you abatement used in the VEET modelling (starting at think this approach is appropriate AU$5.49 per tCO2-e for 2015). Because the likely for valuing greenhouse gas emissions benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions reductions over the period 2016 to have been underestimated, we can be very confident that the 6.9 Mt/yr CO2-e target will 2050? deliver at least the predicted benefits, and that higher targets could also deliver positive benefits if a more realistic value is used. No 5. Is there a case to exclude any business sector(s) from participation in the VEET scheme? 5a. Please outline why this is your preferred option, and comment on how this should be implemented:
1. What should the new VEET target be? Other Other (please specify a target and length): [Required if 'Other' selected] * 7 million tonnes per year for five years. 1a. Please outline why you prefer the target you identified, or why you selected "No response": Your own modelling suggests a higher target is preferable both for households and the economy as a whole. 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? We need modelling to take account of broad economic benefits such as employment, savings to the energy concessions budget and public health benefits 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": No problem with existing methodology 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? The modelling underestimates the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by using a ‘cost of abatement’ value instead of a ‘social cost of carbon’ value. The United States uses a value of $37 per ton of greenhouse gas abatement to guide energy policy decision-making. This is significantly higher than the 2015 values for carbon abatement used in the VEET modelling (starting at AU$5.49 per tCO2-e for 2015). Because the likely benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions have been underestimated, we can be very confident that the 6.9 Mt/yr CO2-e target will deliver at least the predicted benefits, and that higher targets could also deliver positive benefits if a more realistic value is used. 5. Is there a case to exclude any business sector(s) from participation in the VEET scheme? No 5a. Please outline why this is your preferred option, and comment on how this should be implemented:
Sowerwine-Charles.docx