6.2 million tonnes CO2-e per year for five years 1. What should the new VEET target be? Other (please specify a target and length): [Required if 'Other' selected] * 1a. Please outline why you Improving the energy efficiency of our buildings is one of prefer the target you the most cost‐effective ways to cut Victoria’s greenhouse identified, or why you gas emissions. Energy efficiency also creates jobs and selected "No response": 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. A number of benefits of energy efficiency and 2. Comments are invited on the modelling approach used greenhouse gas emission abatement activities have not been to determine the costs and taken into account in the review modelling due to benefits of the VEET insufficient data. These include wider economic benefits scheme. Is there any such as: employment growth direct savings to the additional data or government’s energy concessions budget and public health information that should be benefits of mitigating the risks of living in low‐quality considered? housing, particularly during extreme weather events such as heatwaves. Sample answers to review of the VEET Excluding these benefits means that the modelling results are most likely a conservative estimate of the net benefits of the scheme. This means we can be very confident that the 6.9 Mt/yr CO2‐e target will deliver at least the predicted benefits, if not more. 3. greenhouse gas No response coefficient should be used to quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by the VEET scheme? 3a. Please outline why you The modelling has likely underestimated the benefits of believe this option is reducing greenhouse gas emissions to Victoria, by using a preferred, or why you of abatement’ value (what it costs to reduce one tonne ‘cost selected "No response": of greenhouse gas emissions) instead of a cost of ‘social
1. What should the new VEET target be? 6.2 million tonnes CO2-e per year for five years 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 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. Sample answers to review of the VEET Excluding these benefits means that the modelling results are most likely a conservative estimate of the net benefits of the scheme. This means we can be very confident that the 6.9 Mt/yr CO2‐e target will deliver at least the predicted benefits, if not more. 3. 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": 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
Dean-John.docx