NEWS I REVIEW
Australian Government under fire for renewable changes
SLASHING THE RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET (RET) as proposed by the Federal Government would smash the value of projects that are already operating, and potentially expose the government to massive compensation claims by those affected, new analysis by law firm Baker & McKenzie reveals. The report Financing impacts of amendments to the Renewable Energy Target examines the risks that are likely to arise should the government’s proposal to cut the target be implemented, and how this would impact financial and contractual arrangements for existing and future large-scale renewable energy projects.
The report also examines the issues and complexity associated with designing and implementing any compensation regime to compensate existing renewable energy projects. While the Federal Government has repeatedly assured the industry that changes to the RET would not affect existing investments, its position announced last Wednesday made no reference to compensation to off-set the retrospective hit on existing investments that would result from its proposed 64 per cent slashing of the current scheme. Clean Energy Council Acting Chief Executive Kane Thornton said it was not only future projects and jobs that were on the line if the RET was slashed.
“A change to the policy would result in financial impairment and a substantial risk that existing projects and businesses would collapse, as well as inflicting damage on Australia’s reputation as a safe place to invest,” Mr Thornton said.
“This report shows that a cut in the target of the scale proposed by the government would have far reaching and damaging consequences, and also that ensuring adequate compensation would be an complex and expensive task.
“The finance for every renewable energy project is significantly different, and compensation or transitional assistance would need to be different for each and every project.”
Mr Thornton said over $10 billion worth of investment had been made in large scale renewable energy projects, and those investments were made based on the legislated 41,000 GWh target.
“The legislated policy provides the revenue to underpin the investments in renewable energy projects out to 2030, but this revenue would collapse if the RET is cut, smashing the companies which invested based on its long-standing bipartisan support,” he said.
“Moving the goal posts so significantly on investors would result in massive asset devaluation, job losses and business closures, and send a signal to international investors that Australia is closed for business. The future viability of existing renewable energy projects is highly dependent on a strong, bipartisan policy.”
The main findings of the report are as follows: £ Any substantial reduction of the RET will lead to renewable energy certificate prices being substantially lower than prices modelled for operating and future projects for the purposes of equity and debt financing.
£ Any substantial reduction to the RET will trigger a review of existing funding arrangements by lenders. The cost of capital for equity is likely to be higher, reflecting the higher cost. £ There are likely to be challenges to any legislative change made to the RET which results in adverse impacts on renewable energy operators and developers. £ Any compensation and transitional assistance regime will need to be designed for the specific financial arrangements of each and every renewable energy project. £ Designing compensation or transitional assistance will involve significantinherent complexities and policy issues that could potentially undermine the overall effectiveness and efficiency of a reduced RET. £ There is a risk for the Australian Government that the policy objective of achieving even reducedtargets might not be met because of the impacts resulting from sovereign risk associated with a reduction to the RET. £ The vast majority of existing projects will be up for refinancing over the period 2016-2018. Existing projects might not be able to meet the minimum financing requirements based on the revised set of risk assumptions and parameters.
Issue V 2014 I
www.solar-international.net 11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80