# data[].attributes.body
My thoughts on renewable energy

is that if we use it a lot more, we'll

all live a way better life and create

a better one for our kids in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is about how if we abolish some renewable resources, household energy bills will drop. It will take about 3 years to take effect but it will help.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abolishing the renewable energy target would deliver small reductions in household electricity bills for the next three years, but after that bills would soar, new modelling shows.

Tony Abbott has signalled the government's review of the renewable energy target could pare back or even scrap the scheme because, the prime minister says, it is "causing pretty significant price pressure in the system and we ought to be an affordable energy superpower".

The Coalition has appointed the businessman and self-professed climate sceptic, Dick Warburton, to head the review of the target, which requires retailers to source 20% of energy from renewables such as wind, hydro or solar by 2020.

Last week the renewable energy industry reacted angrily after it emerged that the review was based on modelling which assumed that coal-fired generators would face no carbon price, or regulation or any kind of constraint on their greenhouse emissions for many years. Renewable energy industry representatives said this made the review's modelling a "stitch-up" and a "farce".

The Clean Energy Council (CEC), which represents the renewable energy industry, has commissioned its own modelling from ROAM consulting and it concludes that the average household would pay approximately $50 less a year for their power in 2020 with the renewable energy target in place, compared with what they would pay if it was scrapped. Over the decade after 2020 households would be paying more than $100 a year extra for their power, without the RET.

The modelling found that household bills would fall slightly in the first four years after the RET was scrapped - $11 in the first year, $22 in the second, $16 in the third and $11 in the fourth.

The CEC said the result could be explained by the fact that more renewable energy minimised the need for the use of gas, the price of which was likely to rise dramatically over the decade as exports force the domestic price into line with international prices.

"The RET can help to protect consumers from the power price pain of rising gas prices, while delivering billions of dollars in investment and thousands of jobs for regional areas of the country," said the CEC chief executive, David Green.

He said the study also showed that abolishing the RET would put $14.5bn worth of investment and 18,400 jobs at risk.

Removing the RET would also mean more power was sourced from high-emitting coal-fired generators, making it much more difficult for the government to meet its minimum 5% emissions reduction target by 2020.

One motivation for the government's review was the fact that declining electricity demand has meant the 41,000 gigawatt hours of power which has to be sourced from renewables actually represented a lot more than 20% of the market. According to the ROAM modelling, it would be 22.6% under the current policy.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abolishing renewable energy target offers short-term gain, long-term pain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abolishing the renewable energy target would deliver small reductions in household electricity bills for the next three years, but after that bills would soar, new modelling shows. Tony Abbott has signalled the government's review of the renewable energy target could pare back or even scrap the scheme because, the prime minister says, it is "causing pretty significant price pressure in the system and we ought to be an affordable energy superpower".