Effective Competition – pro what!

What is your politics can be a confronting question. It is getting more difficult to answer the question – What do you do? If you answer too honestly it might make the next question even more confronting: Are you a pro-market forces person or a pro-business person? Initially the difference may not be obvious. But, there is a world of difference if you want to influence a result. The reason is a result requires someone to intervene to give you an edge in the competition for a position in the market. Whereas to get an outcome you might support effective competition to ensure the benefits of what you offer to the market are maximised.

As does happen when you start talking about something, along comes a story that illustrated the point very well, and being it is a political story relevant to today, it is worth making a reference to it: The message relates to whether we will we see more rent-seeking or less under Abbott, more of what The Economist magazine calls “crony capitalism”? Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/abbotts-choice-competition-v-cronies-20141019-1189dm.html#ixzz3GcjBa2XF

The opening lines being: “It’s still too soon to tell whether the Tony Abbott’s government is pro-market or pro-business, but so far the evidence for the latter stacks higher than that for the former.

The difference turns on whether the pollies want markets where effective competition ensures benefits to consumers are maximised and excessive profits minimised, or markets where government intervenes to limit competition – often under the cover of claiming to be protecting jobs – and make life easier for favoured businesses.”

Of course the background to this Canberra Times story is:

“Abbott and his ministers’ intemperate attacks on the Australian National University for its decision to “divest” itself of a few million mining-company shares for environmental or ethical reasons are a worrying sign.

Investors shouldn’t enjoy freedom to choose where they invest, regardless of their reasons? ANU is different from the rest of us even though its investment funds come largely from private donations and bequests? This from a government keen to complete the de facto privatisation of universities?

What is ANU’s offence? Bringing ethical considerations into investment? Or sounding like it believes climate change is real and we should be doing something real about it?

Abbott attacked ANU’s decision as “stupid” and believes “coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future”.

If ever there was an industry whose early decline could be confidently predicted – as it is being by hard-headed investors and bankers the world over – it’s steaming coal.

Yet Abbott seems keen to change the rules of the formerly supposed bipartisan renewable energy target in ways that, by breaking long-standing commitments to the renewables industry, would cost it billions and blight the future of its employees, all to provide the government’s coal and electricity industry mates with temporary relief from the inevitable.

The biggest problem with governments “picking winners” is that they quickly regress to picking losers, helping industries against which technology and other forces have shifted to resist the market’s pressure for change that would – almost invariably – make consumers and the economy better off.”

This where we think it gets really interesting: The review on competition policy is being considered. It becomes even more important to understand whether you are a pro-market or pro-business person. When you support the innovation of ideas you need to know whether the IP is protected when you make available for the market. It is the point of where you commercialise and the particular area where sound competitive principles are most important. It is where the regulation of intellectual property, such as patents, copyright, trademarks and plant breeder rights is critical.

Note we said ‘regulation’ and this implies that a form of government intervention in the market is needed to limit competition with owners of the patents and so forth for a limited period. It’s a necessary response to prevent market failure. However, another problem exists also – how do you encourage continuous improvements to incentivise new knowledge and ideas that progress the benefits?

No easy answer is the response. Maybe just too hard!

The Canberra Times article goes on the say: ” This makes it ripe for rent-seeking: pressuring politicians to extend the monopoly periods retrospectively (despite the lack of public benefit), to allow loopholes that permit phony “ever-greening” of drug patents that would otherwise expire, to limit poor countries’ access to life-saving drugs at realistic prices and to ignore blatant gaming of IP laws by two-bit operators that have never created anything.

Most of these excesses are at their worst in the United States with its easily bought legislature. The information revolution has made IP one of America’s chief export earners. And the free-trade preaching Yanks have made advancing the interest of their IP exporters their chief priority in trade negotiations such as the present Trans Pacific Partnership deal.

As always, we have a tendency to give the Yanks whatever they want. Trouble is, as Harper points out, Australia is and always will be (and should be, given our comparative advantage in world trade) a net importer of intellectual property.”

There lies our point: Australians have been one of the great inventors in the world. Yet something holds us back from being successful on our own country – Is it fighting cronyism!

 

Long view, short term bridging – selling the network asset

What do you know about NSW and Qld privatising their energy networks? Worst kept secret was the reply. ‘They’ intend to divest of the high cost responsibility as quickly as possible. Yet, when you speak to ‘them’ they are stunned that it is possible – the standard reply is it is a position statement to be tested, not ‘yet’ policy. Typically, the form of reply is: ‘we have not been told, but we have been asked to consider what would happen if’. Our immediate thought is it is more proof the public and sector is now saturated with ‘micro managers’ and their work is to be without purpose other than pedant corrections of the efforts the junior staff to innovate.

We now hear you say – how could synergy be possible in that sort of workplace? Reality takes over – it is not possible to have synergy as it involves a need for common purpose. In those sectors what is actually happening is the portrayal of a fictional character as being real. You see for the networks companies, they are operating on a model that has reached the end of its economic life. They must change to survive or to be counted as an asset. The secret word here is ‘asset’.

Co2Land org has always been told that if the bankable is present then there will be an opportunity for business. This is not meant to be a profound statement as such, but a good indication that in the background changes are afoot and plans are being set for change. Why is this important in this post?

The day after our discussion the following story was published 8 Oct 2014:

http://www.afr.com/p/special_reports/energy_security/strong_appetite_for_energy_sector_zmEISUe8FvDkd9uxACcK6M?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=outbrain_amplify – Strong appetite for energy sector privatisations.

“This content is produced by Commonwealth Bank in commercial partnership with The Australian Financial Review.

Australia’s energy and utilities sector is moving towards its most significant period of privatisation since the Victorian and South Australian experience in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Subject to election outcomes, the governments of New South Wales and Queensland have indicated a desire to sell their mature electricity network assets in order to free up funds for new infrastructure projects.

Both states plan to privatise their electricity networks and in addition, Queensland may sell its power generation businesses.

Across the two states, six electricity network companies are being privatised, with Ausgrid in NSW the largest.

Each government has appointed advisers and indicated that if they are re-elected the process will begin almost immediately.

The NSW program is expected to end in the middle of 2016 and Queensland is expected to finish six to 12 months after that.

The scale of the programs with more than $50 billion in assets coming onto the market at the same time presents potential challenges, says Simon Ling, managing director Debt Markets Commonwealth Bank.

“Given both electoral cycles are running on similar time frames, there are market liquidity considerations and constraints depending on the size and the timing of the assets coming to market.”

Both states are engaging in asset turnover – selling mature assets now in order to invest in new assets for the future. They each have commitments for new road and rail infrastructure, and they also want to be able pay down debt.

Fortunately, the timing is beneficial. There is a lot of interest in the market from domestic and offshore super funds, pension funds and infrastructure investors.

However, given the scale of the programs there will be pressure on banks to accept a larger exposure than they would typically take on an interim basis, before longer term funding plans can be put in place.

In terms of the structure of the financing, Mr Ling says, “We expect that the arranging banks will have appetite for significant holds on most of the assets and the balance will be syndicated out to local and international banks with interest. There will also be a need for a short term bridging component to the bond markets.”

Challenges

In programs of this size it is important to appreciate the challenges faced by the governments and financiers.

For NSW and Queensland, the first order of business is certainty of execution. Governments need to be sure that there is enough liquidity in the market to get the deals done.

And of course the other big priority is to deliver the optimum price and return for their communities.

“That comes back to the question about sequencing,” says Mr Ling. “The governments are going to have to be sensible with sequencing because if they want certainty of execution and price tension they need to be careful how they bring this to the market.

“The good news, however, is that there is more than sufficient appetite for this.”

Domestic banks will run multiple teams supporting a number of key bidders in order to increase chances of successfully backing the eventual winners.

For banks, the key risk is the large exposure they will have to take at the close of the transaction, given that the largest companies could require senior debt acquisition financing around $10 billion.

“Once again there is cause for optimism. Global demand for these assets means that ultimately the debt will be able to be placed widely around the world,” says Mr Ling.

Who will invest

Most of the demand for these assets will come from investors looking for low risk, stable assets and regulated cash flows to invest in. Offshore bond markets are also expected to be more receptive and active in this latest round of privatisation than compared to the Victorian and South Australian programs, for instance.

US private placement investors are very familiar with regulated assets in Australia and are expected to have a large appetite for these new opportunities when they come on the market.

In the US, UK and Europe assets such as these would appeal to local capital markets because there is a very highly developed long end to those capital markets. The long dated market in Australia is less developed, therefore core long term funding will be dominated by offshore investors who recognise the unique opportunity to invest in these high quality infrastructure assets operating within a stable regulatory environment.”

All this sounds so admirable, why are we suspicious? Well the answer may come in the form of the inquiry into the senate’s power price inquiry. The Business Speculator asked, “Is the Senate’s power price inquiry a useless witch hunt?” This story is by TRISTAN EDIS 3 OCT, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/10/3/energy-markets/senates-power-price-inquiry-useless-witch-hunt?utm_source=exact

The story quotes: “The Senate has agreed to launch a far ranging inquiry into the effectiveness of regulation over monopoly power network businesses to assess the extent to which consumers may be paying too much for poles and wires.

In addition, it will also examine whether the arrangements for the connection and pricing of network services discriminates against households and businesses that generate their own electricity – for example, via solar PV systems. (The full terms of reference are provided at bottom.)

This inquiry comes on top of countless other reviews and inquiries, with timeline below, including a Senate inquiry looking into electricity price rises just two years earlier. This naturally draws the question, what will yet another inquiry possibly achieve?”

So CO2Land org asks is the result a forgone conclusion? Nothing more than a rubber stamp to say regulation will assure the new buyer will make money and the consumer continues to pay too much?

This is especially relevant when Ernst & Young also reported in the ABC on 13 October 2014, that “the Federal Parliament has announced a Senate inquiry to investigate whether the so-called gold plating of Australia’s electricity networks is artificially driving up the cost of electricity.

Up to 60 per cent of some household electricity bills can be attributed to network costs, which is the amount passed on to consumers for maintaining infrastructure such as poles and wires.”

We also feel it is important to know a little history – If you did not know Australia has in recent times had a non-regulated network in the east. How could this be possible? You see the regulatory rules were written for AC (alternating current) wires connections. DC (direct current) is not AC regulated. So what if we wanted to build DC lines? You could speculate it would introduce competition – assuming competition was welcome!

Another interesting matter is the preoccupation in the story ‘Strong appetite for energy sector privatisations’ with the bank on saying” “However, given the scale of the programs there will be pressure on banks to accept a larger exposure than they would typically take on” – And, “the unique opportunity to invest in these high quality infrastructure assets operating within a stable regulatory environment.”

Forgive us but what about the inquiry! A fair go? Or is it a means to the end!

 

 

Links to customer value – Future Energy Supply Strategies

Regulatory tests and security of supply –Sounds so elegant so simple when it is a strategic position statement or statements. Queensland gives some very good examples in recent times.

The first being the effort Ergon Energy put into the work to secure power supply upgrades to the ‘Granite Belt’ and that process started in 2011. It was abandoned 17 September 2014. What changed?

Then there is biofuel potential in Queensland. Why the focus on non-fossil sourced fuel now?

Then there are the Coal industry woes – China does not want the Galilee Basin coal type – it is too dirty for its cities!

Back to Ergon: After the Warwick Daily News headlined its story, 15 September 2014, “ERGON pulls the plug” – The story was quoting the Qld Energy Minister – Mark McArdle, as announcing the end of duplication of the Warwick to Stanthorpe power line and the controversy over the routes being selected. Ergon Energy then in a letter 17 September 2014 wrote to the landholders that were to be affected by the proposed duplication of the power line and formally advised they will no longer be effected. Clearly indicated for making the decision were the outcomes of the regulatory test(s). How could the regulator test find as it did to stop the project, even sway the politics of the project? Well, the key findings were:

  • The reliability standards changed on 1 July 2014. There is a heightened need to weigh the costs against the value to customers.
  • Existing demand is slowing and the evidence future demand will continue that trend if not further reduce. Certainly not inside the regulatory forecast periods.
  • Rising costs can no longer be blamed on rising demand predictions, that waste and excess must now be addressed for efficiency dividends.
  • There was very little to be concerned about with the reliability of the network as it stands now.
  • There is an edit the focus should be on affordability. That capital expenditure must be justified as needed.

Another way of putting all this is – Ergon Energy or any other supplier cannot get away with gold plating and excessive redundant equipment and infrastructure just because it gives them comfort – it must give value. How can you get value? You can improve the technology offering better monitoring, performance and be ‘smart’. The later is as simple as balancing the demand supply equation with incentives and/or implementing demand management strategies.

And, yes there is more: alternative energy supply is opening being touted as ‘planned initiatives’ What alternative energy? Call it what you like – clean, green or whatever. But what will stick is not only ‘proven technology’ as the descriptors now includes ‘likely technology’ of distributed type and ‘battery’ storage.

As an aside did you know as ‘battery’ can be a physical volume exchange as well as an electron store!

Does this mean technology will save coal? It is possible – but at the end of the day it will get down to the economics and it is not looking all that bright for coal as sustaining its position even for baseload demand.  Even our world partners are turning their backs on coal – it is now seen as too expensive in terms of the outlook, and the economics, the environment and the cost of the process to make it ‘clean’. Recent Chinese regulatory changes are testimony to that issue. Then there is the story -AngloAmerican boss sees coal mines closing at a rate of one a fortnight http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/2569015/angloamerican-boss-sees-coal-mines-closing-at-a-rate-of-one-a-fortnight/ … – no a good look is it!

Yesterday, 22 September 2014, in Canberra the Minister for Industry Ian MacFarlane addressed a biofuel forum on the strategy for Queensland to take the lead on bio fuel production. This follows a paper released through the Queensland University of Technology prepared by Corelli and Deloitte Access Economics. The paper called “Economic impact of a future tropical bioenergy industry in Queensland”. It talks of the ‘potential’ of new manufacturing facilities, and how biofuels can be used as an area of increased focus in agricultural strategy.

What all this means is that traditional energy is heeding a need for a strategic change of heart. Despite what is being said about business as usual, that is not the behaviour behind the scenes and increasingly it is coming to the fore that change is inevitable. The EUAA calls it a paradigm for the industry. The question is what part of the pack are we to become. Australia has always been world renown for finding solutions. What we have not been good at is getting things done, besides talk about it that is.

And, there is more: some government facilitations would assist in industry establishment. Not our quote, it is taken straight from the above papers key findings.

Govtape – emissions, consequences affecting rational thinking

Wintelboff recently had a dilemma to resolve in a brokerage agreement – the best energy price was from a renewable sources retailer. The problem was the transition from the carbon price repeal might actually mean the supply would be from a brown coal generator. How could this happen? It happens when the market is artificially manipulated. When those that advocate and love liberal attitudes to the market it is very disappointing that intervention is done purely on the basis of lobbying and not on evidence.

Back to the outcome: The client decided a black coal generator was the better option, and that Gentailer made it very attractive in terms of an offset for their emissions. They carried no penalty for a solar array on the premises, as its purpose was to address the peak demand issues of the daytime energy use. On balance it was a good deal. Not perfect, however, much better than the attempts of interventionists.

We have found a story that backs up the recant above and tells a frightening story of how intervention brought on by ideology can have consequence – even after a very short time:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/emissions-from-energy-generation-jump-most-in-eight-years-after-carbon-price-axed-20140903-10by8d.html

Emissions from energy generation jump most in eight years after carbon price axed

‘Carbon emissions from the country’s main electricity grid have risen since the end of the carbon tax by the largest amount in nearly eight years.

Data from the National Electricity Market, which covers about 80 per cent of Australia’s population, shows that emissions from the sector rose by about 1 million tonnes, or 0.8 per cent, at an annualised rate last month compared with June.

That is the biggest two-month increase since the end of 2006, and came as a result of an increase in overall demand and a rise in the share of coal-fired power in the market, according to Pitt & Sherry’s monthly Cedex emissions index.

“It is highly likely that the trend directions of electricity demand, generation and emissions seen in the last two months will become set in place,” the consultancy said, adding that the emissions intensity of the power industry was rising after six years of falls.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt did not comment on the rise in emissions when contacted on Wednesday.

Australia’s bipartisan goal is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent below 2000 levels by the year 2020. The government scrapped the two-year-old carbon price in July……..

The share of black and brown coal in the national market rose to 73.3 per cent from a historic low of 72.9 per cent in July, and will probably rise further as gas and hydro start to shrink.

The addition of new wind and solar energy capacity is also about to grind to a halt with the industry anticipating the Abbott government will take an axe to the Renewable Energy Target.

The latest emissions figures come as the 20-megawatt Royalla solar plant, the country’s largest solar farm to be added to the grid, was officially opened in the ACT on Wednesday.

About 370 megawatts of wind in NSW and Victoria and 170 megawatts of large-scale solar are under construction, but “after that, there’s very little in the pipeline”, Pitt & Sherry principal consultant Hugh Saddler said.

Emissions from the power sector account for the largest emissions share of any industry, making up about one-third of Australia’s total. The industry is expected to see a rise of millions of tonnes of emissions in coming months as gas in Queensland starts to be diverted to exports rather than domestic use and the main hydro plants scale back output.

If Hydro Tasmania’s production drops back to levels just after the last drought, output will be about 9 terawatt-hours a year – down from about 12TWh levels before the end of the carbon price.

“If that switches to brown coal, it will be nearly 4 million tonnes” of extra emissions annually, Dr Saddler said.

The share of gas in the market was little changed last month from July at 13 per cent, while hydro’s share dropped to 9.1 per cent from 9.3 per cent, Dr Saddler said.

Wind energy’s share last month eased to 4.6 per cent from 4.9 per cent a month earlier. A windy July saw record wind energy production in the country.”’

 

At the start of this post, we said: a dilemma existed, the client wanted to be progressive, was presented with regressive and it was difficulty to get through the govtape! That’s it – it is govtape not redtape or greentape in the way!

shallow and deeper sustainability – thinking in time frames

Something is sustainable, and you talk about it. You do not a thing about it, what is your problem? We believe the issue is the sustainable risk reward structure is viewed as competition against short-term profits and makes it a target of disquiet with investors not concerned with long-term benefits. This in turn can be used to promote discomfort with our personal circumstances and immediate security. We are saying ‘the bad for the economy tool’ is used to confuse and give the impression it is not worth the effort.

If we start with the definition – CO2Land org is a great believer in defining adequately before you say your piece. If you don’t you are a target for ‘weasel’ word artists that can then exercise ‘plausible denial’ when you rely on their support. By this we say they will rely on the term plausible deniability as a legal concept. They may even say there are a lack of evidence proving they did not say exactly the level of support they would provide and it is not true and a allegation of support. Standards might even be quoted and reference will be made of the need of proof and how that may vary in civil and criminal cases – for example. www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=plausible .

What is sustainable? It is actually dependent on the eye of the beholder. It can be many different things to many different people. To some it is measurable as a financial cost – an economic cost. To others it is the environmental cost and a moral issue of securing the future. How often have you heard it may be immoral, but it is not illegal as a justification for a short-term gain? It is even more complicated if you introduce policy to the argument. At a macro level it is about security, at a micro level the economics of being in business. Nevertheless it is all about efficiency, and that is the problem – the measure of performance!

So what will be done about it, and what will make social and environmental matters more important than just references to being significant to actually doing something about it? Co2LAND Org found the Economist recently published a story that would explain what is needed:

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21614152-few-pioneering-businesses-are-developing-sustainability-policies-worthy-name-new?utm_content=bufferbb375&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer

A new green wave – BILL MCKIBBEN, an American environmentalist, once dismissed sustainability as “a buzzless buzzword”. That seems about right. A survey of 2,000 companies by the MIT Sloan Management Review and the Boston Consulting Group found that two-thirds of businesspeople thought social and environmental matters were “significant” or “very significant” but that only 10% thought they themselves were doing enough about it.

That sense of disappointment should be no surprise. Sustainability can refer to anything from building wind farms to combating social inequality. The idea crops up everywhere from Starbucks to the deliberations of the United Nations (whose governments are in the middle of working out a set of so-called Sustainable Development Goals for 2015-30). An ill-defined, controversial notion is no basis for coherent policy.

Many corporate “sustainability plans” are therefore modest. They focus on saving energy, cutting waste and streamlining logistics. Nothing wrong with that: these things reduce operating costs while benefiting the environment. They help explain why sustainability efforts tend to increase profits, not reduce them. A study by Robert Eccles and George Serafeim of the Harvard Business School (HBS) found that, between 1992 and 2010, companies which adopted what they call high-sustainability policies were more profitable and improved their stockmarket valuation more than those which did not (though this may just have been because high-sustainability firms happened to be better managed).

However, there are drawbacks to such plans. For one thing, they are misnamed: these are efficiency policies, not sustainability ones. Companies ought to want to save energy or cut waste anyway, regardless of the impact on the environment. And it turns out that many of the schemes do not in fact do that much for the environment or social equity. The majority of greenhouse-gas emissions associated with consumer goods, for example, are produced either in the supply chain or by shoppers. So there is only limited scope for such products’ makers to lessen their environmental footprints through green measures of their own.

As a result, most corporate sustainability plans rarely amount to more than cost-saving measures and compliance with government regulations, plus a few projects with a public-relations punch (say, reforesting parts of a cleared jungle). They fall well short of putting sustainability at the heart of what firms do.

For some companies, though, that is changing. Take SABMiller, the world’s second-largest brewer. The firm has been a pioneer in the field. But until recently its sustainability efforts consisted of a laundry list of targets (there used to be ten) aimed at reducing carbon emissions or water usage in its brewing operations. This summer it unveiled new, broader targets—only five this time—which apply to suppliers, sellers and customers, as well as to SABMiller itself. It is promising to teach basic business skills to 500,000 small enterprises, mostly shops which sell its beer. It is helping farmers use water more efficiently: in Rajasthan, in northern India, it is working with wheat farmers who have been depleting their aquifer to reduce water use by a quarter, to ensure it still has water to brew beer. And it is sponsoring anti-drunkenness and road-safety campaigns aimed at its own customers.

Jane Nelson, director of the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School, says SABMiller’s efforts are characteristic of a new wave of sustainability plans. These set targets not only for the company but for the people it works with and sells to. The targets are not only about the environment but society at large. (In a spectacular example, Unilever, an Anglo-Dutch consumer-goods giant, says it aims to “help a billion people take steps to improve their health and well-being”.) They are supervised by the board, not left to specialists. Domtar, an American fibre company, created a sustainability committee but the vice-president for sustainability does not chair it; the chair rotates among other managers so as to involve the firm as a whole. In short, she argues, for some companies sustainability has become a core part of their strategy, not just a green way to cut costs.

Little green men

But why should firms make sustainability central to what they do? Environmentalists might reply that virtue is its own reward. But companies need more concrete returns—higher profits, say, or increased sales, or higher stockmarket valuations.

The first wave of sustainability policies provided those. The new wave may not: sustainability targets could raise costs, not cut them, making environmentally friendly consumer goods more expensive than the eco-hostile variety. Efforts to combat social inequality could boost wages. Training can be costly.

Paul Polman, the boss of Unilever, argues that good sustainability policies still improve the fundamentals of businesses in the long run. They change customers’ behaviour in beneficial ways—by, say, increasing demand for green products that the firm makes. They also please investors concerned about environmental threats. The trouble is that consumer behaviour is often slow to change and that, if green products are too expensive, the firm risks losing market share. Environmental investors are still a minority among shareholders, most of whom continue to be more concerned about quarterly earnings.

The first wave of sustainability rewarded itself. The new wave will not do that. It is more akin to investing now to have a licence to operate in future, when consumers, lobbyists and regulators will be ever more demanding about the way firms behave. That does not mean the new wave will not reward its adopters. But it will boost their long-term competitive position, rather than their short-term profits. Unlike the rewards of the superficial first wave, those of deeper sustainability could take years to sink in.

Economist.com/blogs/schumpeter

Co2Land org thinks the later point above is another way to think of sustainability – shallow and deeper sustainability when defining what it is to you. And, we say some ore thicker than others and it takes longer to sink in!

What hurts more – dealing with energy contracts.

Measures or impacts – what hurts you more when you are dealing with energy contracts as a small, but described as large in National Electricity law, business? What factors affect your decision to enter into the contract? How do you stand up for your rights?

The first rule is do not expect consumer legislation to protect you! You may be surprised that energy regulations even circumvent your rights. For instance: The deemed provisions, and price during the contract period. Then consider the extraordinary fact the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) is on record as saying the equivalent of ‘caveat emptor’ – buyer beware is sufficient protection.

In the case of Energy Service Agreement, Retail Energy Agreement or simply Contract for Sale of Electricity (the description referred to by your retailer) you should realise you are without ‘warranty’. You see without a warranty the buyer takes the risk. The supplier or energy retailer takes no risk. In most cases this is true if you are a small (large business).

A series of recent brokering agreements by WIntelboff has highlighted to the client that this risk is critical. Even intervention strategies can be protracted and lack a feeling of satisfaction for the client. Most might even be frustrated because it is costly to fight, and if they qualified for the Ombudsman to investigate there is the risk they will be told ‘no, too difficult’, or the equivalent!

One client has penned her concerns in trying to get a fair contract, and we feel compelled to air them for her:

“On receipt of XXXXXX offer of renewal of electricity supply to the XXXXXXX XXX, the Manager, passed it on to me to “check out” as I had (and am still) involved with researching the power industry and finding ways and means of reducing our power bills.

The initial offer for three years from a numbers point of view looked like a vast improvement on what we are paying for Power from XXXXXX at present.

However on wading through the thirty odd pages of contractual agreement I realised that it was one of the most complex legal documents I had ever had to consider.

I recommended to XXXXX we ask the advice of the ‘crew’ who had been guiding us through installing Solar Power for the Business for two reasons….

They had a greater understanding of the Industry and what affected the retail electricity market…and I was concerned about the solar panel installation and other power reduction strategies affecting the tariff adversely with the 160Mwh factor

My concern that the fine print was mostly one way…to XXXXXX with no real guarantees built in to protect us from penalties..

Bottom line is…

In my personal opinion, XXXXXX’s business methods with this are appalling and amount to business bullying. Expecting a XXXXXXXX (requiring managerial and/or Board Approval) to make a decision with 2 weeks of receiving their renewal…AND…stating that the time could be extended…but didn’t when I requested it …. is tantamount to fraudulent behaviour.”

CO2Land org feels that a truly competitive industry would have adequate consumer protection, and you would expect where it was possible to lose customers you would be concerned about adverse behaviour. You would even expect a civil response to your queries – more than just the family phone message of ‘why we are great people’. Actually, when asking one retailer if it was possible to change a threshold provision – The actual response might surprise you – the 300 MWh pa + customer was told “you are too small a customer to influence us to adjust or amend our contract”!

It gets really scary at this point. They don’t care? Why you might ask. Some speculation could be: They might be selling short in the market. As such they can make more money from ‘double dipping’ than dealing with you. For the long sell retailer they might just offer fantastic prices to fill the books and just raise the prices later. The really scary thing is it is not just the raw energy prices at play here. It can also be environmental charges and some government fee liabilities.  

If you do not believe us – just read your contract very carefully. Some terms and conditions might be expressly stated, and some overtly say you are screwed.

CO2Land org is aware of only one retailer, at this time, that includes an undertaking to not rise prices for the contract with the exception of those mandated by government. Even then, you might be a little nervous when you realise the retailer is government owned! What if they mandate a change? What if they sell to a private company and the condition of sale says you can charge what you like – eh, you are deregulated? But better the bird in the hand as they say. At least if done wrong by Government you can vote them out eventually. Unfortunately, retailers in the mean time might just laugh and say how can you hurt me!

It is disappointing that tactics and marketing are used to make you believe they are doing it for you, when the deal is something else it is their insurance – not yours, and you are the one paying.

Stop Press – small *described as small, should ask for up to 17 % Discount on their bill. But what penalties take it all back again + more – that is for another post. In the mean time just remember to look at what you give up for the illusion of more!

 

Frailly – the morally weak resistance to Climate Change and Renewable Energy

Frailly might explain the morally weak and the extraordinary resistance of some to climate change and a useful tool in fighting it – renewable energy. You might notice a Minister will flounder and adding insult to injury make confounding and confusing statements, ad hoc, and as the selective audience wants to hear. Authors that have had entrenched positions in the past are now desperate to distant themselves from any association with the evidence they previously exposed. You want some examples?

Adding insult to injury: Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt is on record as not denying cabinet rolled him on climate change. He has since approved the Carmichael Mine in the Galilee Basin in Queensland. What is confusing is that the mine owners may end up with stranded assets, as the world appears to be turning its back on coal for either environmental or economic reasons. How could that happen, aren’t the Indian owners on top of the game? The answer may be they diversify and spread the risks. It may be they are looking at the risks seriously too, and their significant investment in Australia is under Climate Change risk that cannot be ignored. In particular their investment in and the serious threat to Agriculture. Indian Conglomerate, Olam is reported: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-10/agricultural-giant-says-climate-change-absolutely-real/5659058 . Olam International chief executive Sunny Verghese has told Landline that agricultural producers and processors need to take action now.

“It is absolutely a reality that climate change is going to significantly impact agriculture,” he said.

“It impacts it both from the nexus it has with water, and the nexus it has with micro-climate as well, so it is probably the most important driver to future agricultural production, productivity and therefore price.”

Mr Vergese was on the Gold Coast this week to address the 2014 Australian Cotton Conference.

His Singapore-based company has operations in 65 countries, and is the world’s biggest trader in cashews, and the second biggest trader in coffee and cotton.

Olam International has had a presence in Australian since 2007; it owns Queensland cotton, manages 12,000 hectares of almond orchards in Victoria and has investments in the grain, wool and pulse industries.

“Mr Verghese said one of Olam’s initiatives to tackle the impacts of climate change was to reduce water consumption.

We have a target that in our tier one manufacturing and processing facilities we will reduce water usage per tonne of product that we supply by 10 per cent by 2015, and in our farms by 10 per cent by 2020,” he said.

“Similarly we can track the carbon dioxide emission that we generate across all our commodities in each country.

Again we have put some hard targets of how we are going to reduce that carbon emission footprint for every tonne that we supply by 2015 and 2020.

My view is that there is no point if I say I’ve generated half-a-billion after tax earnings, but I’ve depleted $200 million of natural capital from the environment.

Because then I’ve got to question myself, what is the point of all this overwhelming effort if at the end of the day you’ve really depleted the natural capital and left a huge bill to pay for future generations?”

Co2Land org is also aware of Indian companies in Iron Ore and other minerals in Australia and you might conclude they are balancing their portfolio as opposed to placing all the eggs in one basket. But are they also positioning themselves to expect trade-offs from the government? You might say – but hang on the government says no assistance will be given to industry. Then again we know the federal government in particular likes to offer diesel credits and subsidies if they contribute to mining! Those subsidies are significant – like $b’s.

Then there is NSW Planning Minister Prue Goward saying she supports sensible renewable energy, then says she resists approvals of new renewable projects! Also representing the Southern tablelands area of Goulburn district is the Federal MP Angus Taylor. He is on record as saying sun and wind energy should not be increased in the southern tablelands. Which ironically is very well suited in terms of sunshine and wind and infrastructure availability. Then it is reported Angus, when speaking on 2WEB – Bourke – and in the Australian Financial Review, recently said that Solar Energy is an important part of the energy mix in regional Australia. He even called for changes to the regulation of electricity distribution network charges. He essentially followed the Grattan Institutes recent report: “The key here is to look for low cost ways to move towards clean energy…Increasingly we are seeing that solar is likely to be the renewable energy to win the race”. Then comes the contentious bit for the network companies: The advantage of rooftop solar is that it doesn’t need the distribution network, which is …very expensive”. Go figure we say!

Then we have Rod Stokes The NSW Environment Minister advocating we will have a demonstration town in NSW that is to be disconnected from the network grid in 2014. It all sounds back to the future does it not? A time back when many towns were not grid supplied in the past, and local government actually were responsible for power generation too. The issue in those days was, and is now the efficiencies needed for payback. CO2Land org recently looked at a Monaro region town that wanted to go fully solar. Think 30 years paybacks. Why? 105 households and backup infrastructure needed for reliable supply. Maybe just a little premature on that proposal as we are sure technology will advance to better suit but sometime later we think.

What all this leads to is sensitivity and concerns. On the one hand you need to keep your customers happy. On the other networks need to either change how they do business or just keep on encouraging the regulator to actively discourage renewable energy. So what are networks going to do? Even that gets confusing – it seems customers don’t want change either, and some say for example: I left the city for a lifestyle change and I buy from the local businesses and I create jobs because of it. Then some company builds a wind farm nearby, and a solar farm is proposed too. I wont have that! Note the ’we’ is missing here, and the local businesses say that the wind and/or solar farm is good for business and workers come in and buy and people come to see the area’s attractions! Even move perverse is many of the objectors tend to be those that were not offered revenue from the project. Even neighbour against neighbour can occur because one allows a tower or panel on their land for a rent and the other missed out. Get it, like not in my backyard, but if you pay me it is OK? We find it interesting that the tree change types are happy that conventional power station plumes can destroy our fertile areas like the Hunter Valley and they don’t care!

Ok, so the answer is go bush and the Southern Tablelands local MP (Angus Taylor) says Solar is fine – in the bush and networks are expensive – sounds a bit of an oxymoron does it not?

Maybe the whole game is to discourage and to make it too hard, or is it just a ruse to confuse? If you want to be confused even further try reading the Business Spectator article: 7 August 2014, it was said “Finally, and perhaps more important than all the other arguments, future private owners of the networks in NSW and Queensland are likely to welcome asset write-downs, if it’s done before they put their money on the table.” The author does seem to suggest it is a plausible argument to suggest brown paper bags work best to influence an outcome? But, if so – won’t there be an inquiry?

Let us read through that story a little more: Why the power networks are wrong about writedowns,     BRUCE MOUNTAIN , 7 Aug 2014. If we select the key phrases:

“The Energy Networks Association has recently released some modelling that suggests consumers will be worse off if stranded network assets are written off. The gist of its argument is that such revaluations are perceived negatively by investors, who then demand a higher rate of return on their investment to compensate them for the risk.

The ENA’s argument seems fallible in a number of respects. Firstly, we need to question its assumption that networks investors have not already been compensated to bear asset-stranding risk. The regulatory calculation of the return on assets is based on an external ‘benchmark’. It is not based on the firms’ actual cost of equity and debt.

Prospective private investors, governments, consumer advocates, retailers (and the Energy Networks Association) might usefully focus on these questions. Better to get with the times than to try to hold back the tide. “

What concerns Co2land org about all this is the need to concentrate on networks as ’the investment problem’? We can understand that others might not be so convinced that we should merely think of networks being a commodity rather than a service. Even if you think of them as commodities – is it right to say – like the energy market can be fixed of its shortcomings, and then quote UK examples of why the problems will continue? Terribly confusing is it not old chap!

CO2Land org and our partners are prepared to accept that it is not solely the networks at fault. We feel certain parallels could be drawn but not one of the solutions can be directed to one side, we need new ideas to be brought forward and resist drawing parallels that do not exist. 

There may be an argument that it is necessary for chaos to exist in regulation land, so things can sort themselves out. But, that wont happen – too easy, Human nature directs it needs to be complicated!

All that put aside: what the networks need is a model to go forward with, so inevitably some write-downs and disquiet will happen. It will not be the end of networks providing they have strategies to move forward in partnership with renewables. Why else would the politicians being expressing they might change their mind, it cannot be all tactics to disrupt and detract progress – could it! 

 

 

Can you opt out of a contract – energy companies can in AU

Recent articles said energy retailers have all the power when it comes to contracts. Our friend the chook farmer tackled that notion and won. But the really disappointing thing was the retailer was reluctant to apologise, instead they said ‘as a Customer Service gesture xxxxxx have reversed…”. That said another retailer that was caught up in to saga was very generous in the way they handled the matter. You might feel as we do – the later can be recommended to our friends for future Business! The energy user also deserves special praise for the courage to stand up to what we saw as bullying.

Published on 31 July 2014 by the Canberra Times http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/all-power-to-the-energy-companies-when-it-comes-to-adjusting-prices-20140731-zyvp9.html , it was a story that expressly said Electricity companies appear to be able to opt out of contracts. This does fly in the face of what a student might remember as Contract Law 101 – reasonable man, offer acceptance that sort of thing. Well it does seem the energy contract also known as an Energy Supply Agreement (ESA) or Retail Supply Agreement (RSA) is a one way contract – user can be used sort of thing. If the user has limited rights how did chook farmer win when it was stacked against him. It actually had nothing to do with the interference of National Electricity Law (NSW), pressure from the ombudsman or common sense. It was the greed of the energy company itself in that they cooked up a scheme and sent out a letter a couple of years ago saying if you do not reply you will be deemed on contract for 3 years – You better check your agreements chappies, you might be contracted and don’t know it!

The answer to the ‘win’ was the energy company relied on a deemed contract. But, they failed to ensure they had an executed original contract in place. The timeline was in 2012 they said by their conduct they had a contract duly executed from 2009. In 2014 they decided they no longer wanted the customer and allowed the customer to transfer to another retailer. Then retrospectively they wanted a $10k plus penalty payment for an early exit. Where the sneaky weasel went wrong was the energy company did not have an executed 2009 ESA to prove a contract existed in the first place.

Well it seems in Australia and NSW in particular an energy company can write into the contract a clause that overrides contract law. That is a price can be varied at any time the supplier wishes. The example above also highlights another problem – the retailer ignored the pleas for justifying the attempted charges. That is correct they refused to be transparent, and the claimed they had no need to show how they arrived at the numbers. Previously co2land org has written of Rule 72. It does seem the same principle is used in this instance.

We mentioned Ombudsman also, do you know they are member funded by the people you might complain about? This means they do not operate to instigate, they mediate within rules. If the rules are stacked against you, well – use your imagination! Better still read the direct quotes on the industry behaviours from the Canberra Times article: “The industry’s regulator has decided that your power supplier can raise charges whenever it decides, rejecting a plan from a consumer group to force utilities to comply with the terms of a contract.

Electricity suppliers have been accused of seeking to entice new customers by offering attractive deals on two- or even three-year contracts – except the small print gives the supplier an opt-out, the ability to raise prices when it wants.

As a result, a consumer who has shopped around to find a plan that suits them can find the prices have changed even before they receive their first bill.

This prompted the Consumer Action Law Centre, through its arm the Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre, to seek to have power companies blocked from being able to unilaterally change fees and charges. It went to the industry’s regulator, the Australian Energy Market Commission, asking it to act.

But the regulator decided not to, preferring instead to ask retailers to be upfront about any changes.”

Co2land org would have hoped for increased certainty around the market. The advocate tones of what is needed clearly show the Australian situation needs to change. It seem the strong are protected and the less well prepared to be exploited. How does this fair with the rest of the world? Again quoting the Canberra Times: ”Retailers can manage those risks better than households….They know the market. Instead, all of the risk lies with the household.” The Consumer Action Law Centre spokesperson then said: “The regulator’s decision is at odds with that of regulators in other countries, such as the UK regulator Ofgem, which last year blocked power retailers from raising prices on fixed-term contracts, which are disadvantageous to the customer. Similarly, power companies are prevented from levying termination charges when their fixed-term contracts expire.”

Our final word: If we want so much to copy others good legislation, this UK example is a good place to start and make a difference too!

 

Financial Oppression

As happens, we are seeing 2010 warnings reignited it was said: Give me an example. Try Real Power Systems v’s Wannon Water (2011). So what was the point? Financial Oppression was said.

That said, we looked for straightforward examples and it was not hard. However, Financial Repression also strung up at us at the same time. The difference? The later is the act of Governments to deliberately bring hardship provisions forward – but lets leave that for the politicians to argue why and why not. Is it happening? Have you done your tax returns yet? Read the 2014-15 budget provisions?

What is the bigger issue disturbs us more: That people want to give up, give in and forget there is a galaxy much bigger than us and is more amazing. Yeah OK it sounds really ‘Monty Python’ but why do we let it happen? Money, it is good and it is bad if not managed well. Then comes the argument it is about the resources. Corporations have almost infinitive resources, individuals tend to just despair and accept they do not have sufficient resources to fight.

Then comes another story, written as an enlightening and explanatory of how some we trust let us down:

“While sitting in Church this morning, I heard some very disturbing news that motivated me to write this article.

I am sure that the numbers are close to being the same all over the country. But, the disturbing thing about the news in church was the fact that the suicide rate was up to 15% and that was a dramatic jump from previous years.

The pastor talked about the reasons why. The bottom line to these “tsunami” of our society’s ills is credit and the economy. The majority of these people had credit issues and didn’t have the resources to pay their bills.

Let’s go way back in history. In the old world, I believe it was one of the great generals of history that eliminated debtor’s prison. His reasoning was that most of the debtors were farmers. If, they stayed in prison, then who would grow the crops to feed his army? Hmm. Well, that was a couple of hundred years ago and before the emergence of credit as we know it.

But, nevertheless, it was still credit. You borrowed, you owed, you couldn’t pay therefore you were punished. Have we come so far that we have become to retreat back to that same situation that prevailed hundreds of years ago?

I don’t think our politicians nor do our bankers realize the havoc, pain and hardship that the average person is under because of one issue alone. That, my friend is the cost of credit. If, you don’t think that your neighbor is worried about not having enough money to pay his bills, then you are living in “la la” land.

Lets take a look. I had written a previous article about the rule of “72” and how it impacts everyone. Time to explain it just a little more in depth. Lets just say that your, Mum has $10,000 and puts it into the bank. She is very happy because the bank represents security. In fact, if you tell her that she can make more by buying municipal bonds, she gets the “broom” out and comes at you.

So, here is Mum with her secured savings. Now, lets say that her friendly banker, with that “snaky” grin gives her a passbook for her to keep track of more money she puts into his bank. He offers her a (04%) interest on her money. Now, divide that (04%) into 72 and see what the number is. It is exactly (18).

Yes, that mean it takes (18) years for her ($10,000) to double.

Amazing that this is not taught in the higher universities in our county but everyone that has gotten his “masters in street finance” knows this.

Ask any bookmaker what the rule of “72” is and he will spit it out like “fire from a dragon”.

Now, lets just go into a different room. Lets say that you got a credit card. Now, lets say that because you were late on a payment, they jumped the interest rate to (36%). Yeah, it happens. But, here are some real shocking numbers. Listen up.

I am going to start with a basic small amount of ($300.00). This seems to be the amount that the average family started out with. Now, lets just say that you for some reason was either late or went over the limit. When you combine both of those problems, you incur a penalty of ($78.00) per month. Go ahead and add up both of the penalties.

Now, here is where the “hidden gun” comes into your life and virtually “steals your hard earned money” and they never pulled the trigger. If, you think that some petty thief that held up the local gas station to feed his family is a bad guy, and he only got ($50.00) lets put this in your pipe and smoke it.

Lets add up those late fees and the over limit fees for twelve months.

Hmmm. According to my calculator that comes out to be ($938.00) and when you add that on too the initial ($300,00) you now have a total owed of ($1,238.00)

Worried? You should be. This is what is happening and has happened to hundreds of thousands of Australians – and millions in my country of America. Now you owe at the end of one year ($1,238.00) and when you multiply (36%) annually, you now owe the credit card company ($1,682.98) at the end of only twelve months and you haven’t bought anything.

Here is where the tears turn into blood. Let’s jump ahead to the end of year two. Now, you might have gotten some phone calls but nothing that broke any dishes. But, at the end of two years, here is what you owe the company that gave you a ($300.00) credit card and never put up any money. They collateralized your signature. Anyway at the end of two years you owe ($2,288.85)

This my friends is the main reason why people commit suicide, politicians turn the other cheek because of the strength and influence of the lobbyists, the banking industry wants you to believe they want to help you, but when you fully grasp the mechanics of the “rule of 72” you either throw up your lunch, kick the dog, argue with the wife or get drunk.

But will this problem go away? Not unless you grab the bull by the horns and learn what to do.” Source – http://www.money-tips.com.au/articles/228/1/Financial-Oppression/Page1.html

Why write this? We started talking about Energy Retailers and how at least one does seem to practice ‘rule 72’ regardless of the morals. With relief we did not mention which bank but we all know their behaviour by recent publicity.

All about gas, coal has lost it

It is all about gas. Coal has lost it, but it is a good distraction. Petroleum is a convenient price setter. Renewables are the future and the trick is to be to get the traditional utility models to take ownership. But what is the price?

World wide scholarly types have put forward a number of maps of energy analysis for, Japan and globally. Japan is topical because they are more likely to be a first tier part of Australia’s trade. 

The trade approaches call for model development for energy demand, costing, efficiency, and green house gas emission – We trust you noted that models needed included Greenhouse Gas emissions. Why? Because Japan for its energy security must consider its short and long selling trades on energy. Energy needs include considering an individual process basis including fuel cell technology, vehicle technology, internal electricity needs and the usage strata on all levels including regional or national levels with a multiplicity of competing energy processes.

That said, Japan is only one of our global partners with similar concerns. All must consider in their national interest what are some of the comparable energy pathways. Those pathways include: Coal importation, fuels used for electricity production, electricity use in either residential, commercial, and transportation sectors etc. In all these considerations the answers can change over time and some of the drivers will be the relevant technology needs, the gaps in sustainable delivery mechanisms to meet the demands and gaps in supply, and they must also consider the time frames needed to close each fuel supply type and substitute them.

Australia’s politics is sending up a big smoke screen – Coal is King. World prices and demand says something different something like ‘Coal is dead long live the Coal’ 
 We hear of ‘clean coal’ and then we hear it is a nonsense. What is certain is it becoming an undesirable fuel source. This is not saying unnecessary it is simply saying much less attractive on the world stage. Why, technology can now provide better fuel sources without the climate change consequences. So much so that at any price, coal is too expensive. Coal can be burnt, but needs processing to be useful for other purposes. The term embodied energy come to mind here. It means the amount of energy needed to convert may be higher than the value of the material compared to alternative process. Then there is gas! Gas can be used for its molecule – to make fertilizer for instance, to fuel your stove, boiler, it can be a by-product of another process such as syngas. Your waste can even be used to produce it. Gas can be processes or extracted to supply. But the choices are better, cleaner. Granted, not the best energy source, but far more sensible than relying on coal. Hence, the now is all about gas.

Then there is the markets that determine viability to produce. Despite what our Australian policy makers might be telling us – the truth is more than ‘real’, it more than to be affective it is about being effective. It is not good enough to be positioned well, you also need an effective agenda. Or, at least have you agenda smarter than the other guys. What is there to critique about our stance, now:

Carbon Tax – the UK, US Republicans are all active in thinking a Carbon Tax is good. It is a market mechanism that works. This flies in the face of Australia’s Environment Minister saying it does not – even though the evidence suggest Australia’s Carbon Emissions reduced 11% since the introduction of a carbon price. Even more perplexing is why the Australian government put forward to confuse carbon price and carbon tax. For instance in the legislation for clean energy was the term the Carbon Price. The ‘price’ included offsetting for a transition of industry to a low carbon future. In the repeal legislation is substituted the words Carbon Tax as meaning Carbon Price. The UK and US clearly think there is a difference between the two definitions.

An example of the critics is, on 9 July 2014, Lord Deben – a UK Tory and is noted from the Thatcher years to now as expert on the environment has issued a statement through the ABC saying the Abbott Government “appears to be more concerned with advancing its own short-term political interests” than dealing with global warming.

Also, on 7 July 2014, Solar Reserve chief executive Kevin Smith told the ABC’s Four Corners program the company had been deterred by a drift in policy and the planned scrapping of the carbon tax.

It was also concerned about the appointment of Dick Warburton, who doubts that carbon emissions are causing global warming, to lead a review of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target.

“That policy change pretty much took the life out of the renewable energy sector as far as large-scale projects for utility applications [are concerned],” Mr Smith said.

“Other markets around the world are advancing. Australia is going to get left behind.”

On Mr Warburton’s appointment, Mr Smith said: “Clearly that appointment was made because they want to move back towards conventional fuels, coal and oil.

“It’s pretty clear that the policy in Australia is now being centred around big coal. The coal industry clearly has rallied to move policy away from renewable energies because they view renewable energy as a threat and want to move back to convention coal.”

“Just think, these coal companies won’t be able to sell their coal overseas unless they get sequestration or offset commitments and the only way they can do that is if they have an ETS; they can’t pay for it unless they’ve got carbon credits.

“They’ve killed themselves. Coal is dying anyway, but they’ve killed themselves even quicker.

“The whole politics of climate change has regained a bit of ground.”

Then consider:

Palmer United Party’s commitment to keep part of the architecture of the carbon laws in place – the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority – is a big win, and the reality is it’s driven by the market, ‘Newman’ says.

“That’s enough for now; we’ll regroup. We’ll get there.”

But do we really have to lose the ETS mechanism?

The suggestion Is then that the government cross benches are not happy:

This disaster started to unfold to vote for the ETS in 2009?

“A Victorian senator, Judith Troeth, a senior figure in the Liberal Party’s moderate faction, and a Queensland senator, Sue Boyce, crossed the floor to vote with Labor senators when the legislation was finally put to a vote,” reported the Sydney Morning Herald at the time.

Both these women are now gone. But maybe there are a few other senators willing to vote with their conscience.

It’s a time for bravery. There are Titanic shifts everywhere right in both the US and Australia and impressively they are from the conservative big end of town.

Last week was the think piece in the New York Times from the über-conservative Republican politician Hank Paulson, a former US Treasury Secretary, that ricocheted around the world.

It was based on a bipartisan report, Risky Business, that argued that global warming was no different to the global financial crisis and even more dangerous. And yet it was if the world was ploughing straight into a mountain, Paulson said.”

You might even note here – we are not talking technology, it is the passion of addressing the ‘real’ issues.

We wonder what would happen if you introduced the technology issues with wind-based electricity for water electrolysis for hydrogen production and the use of hydrogen in fuel cell vehicles, the use of biomass to produce biofuels for transportation. I bet the vested interests would do all they can to stop the innovation. Despite how short sighted it is to oppose.

To recap why we mentioned our agenda needs to be smarter. Consider this:

“LNG spot prices for Japan at 3-year low

TOKYO — Spot prices of liquefied natural gas for Japanese buyers have been hovering at the lowest level in about three years due to increased supplies and sluggish demand.

     Spot prices are about $11 per million British thermal units, about the same as immediately after the March 2011 earthquake in Japan. From February this year, the price has dropped about 40%.

     Supplies for Asia are increasing. An LNG project in Papua New Guinea, in which Exxon Mobil and JX Holdings have stakes, began production in May instead of the originally scheduled September or later. Now, more than 300,000 tons of LNG from Papua New Guinea flow into the spot market monthly. And shipments from Indonesia and Australia are also steady.

     In contrast, demand is not as strong. Ten Japanese power companies had 2.44 million tons of LNG inventories at the end of April, up 13% from a year earlier. With the temperature through May having been warmer than usual, these companies did not have to generate as much electricity as a year before.

     In South Korea, state-owned gas company Korea Gas piled up LNG inventories as the country restarted nuclear power plants. It is now asking such Japanese companies as Tokyo Gas and Chubu Electric Power to buy its excess.

(Nikkei)”

Danger Danger no doubt!