option is preferred, or why you selected "No response": The modelling has likely underestimated the 4. The Department has valued greenhouse gas emissions reductions benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to attributed to the VEET scheme by Victoria, by using a of ‘cost abatement’ value (what it costs to reduce one tonne of greenhouse adopting a carbon valuation series that was produced by the Federal Climate gas emissions) instead of a of ‘social cost value in the calculations. The social cost Change Authority as part of its 2014 carbon’ Targets and Progress Review.Please of carbon is defined as the costs imposed on the outline whether you think this wider economy by greenhouse gas emissions (most commonly carbon dioxide). These approach is appropriate for valuing greenhouse gas emissions reductions economic damages can take various forms over the period 2016 to 2050? including decreased agricultural yields, harm to human health, property damages from increased flood risk and lower worker productivity. 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 which have been 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 No 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: 5b. Please outline why this is your There is ample evidence that significant preferred option: opportunities exist for business and industry to improve energy efficiency at low or negative cost, and that such efficiency and productivity improvements would deliver benefits to individual businesses and to the wider Victorian economy. I support the inclusion of large energy users (industry, hospitals, universities etc.) in the VEET scheme. However, I do not support these businesses receiving benefits under the scheme for retrospective investment decisions. Investments in energy efficiency
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? 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 gas emissions) instead of a ‘social cost of carbon’ value in the calculations. The social cost of carbon is defined as the costs imposed on the wider economy by greenhouse gas emissions (most commonly carbon dioxide). 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. 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 which have been 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: 5b. Please outline why this is your preferred option: There is ample evidence that significant opportunities exist for business and industry to improve energy efficiency at low or negative cost, and that such efficiency and productivity improvements would deliver benefits to individual businesses and to the wider Victorian economy. I support the inclusion of large energy users (industry, hospitals, universities etc.) in the VEET scheme. However, I do not support these businesses receiving benefits under the scheme for retrospective investment decisions. Investments in energy efficiency
Watters-Robyn.docx