If based on the Carbon Trust UK scheme, Rudds approach may revolutionise the energy efficiency of commercial / industrial and community premises here.

The cost to the Taxpayer is in reality absolutely zilch…

Essentiall the funding of upgrades to lighting equipment and retro-fit lamps is a simple equation.
Before upgrade electricity consumption is X
After upgrade electricity consumption is Y

The saving due to upgrade provides the funds to meet the cost of the same.

Realistically a modest interest rate should be charged to cover wages of carbon trust staff and administratiobn of the scheme.
This in itself further insulates the taxpayer from funding those legitimate costs and indeed would eventually mean taxpayers initial funding could be retrieved in full, while the scheme would continue to grow, as a say ( its the closest I see to perpetual motion )

So who is to be the loser? The power generator or electricity wholesalers??

IF the power generating companies wish to maintain current or increased output to meet current/future demand, they will have to fund substatial infrastructure and higher maintenance costs etc.

But increased output means increased carbon emission.
Result:
Risk of additional and unsustainable financial penalties.
.
Electricity wholesalers are the ones likely to feel a crimp due to
the fact that lighting upgrades drastically reduce consumption.
Reduction can be up to 2/3 of existing monthly account.
.
EG: A major logistic company next door to us, uses 400 x 456watt MV lamps (very inefficient and highly hazardous ) operating 24hrs x 365 days.

For lighting alone that little lot equates to consumption of approx:
1.6million Kwh/pa @ a cost of around $192,000 pa
.
A retro-fit project undertaken for these premises would result in:
Energy savings of around 1,000,000Kwh pa and around $ 120,000 pa.
GHG emission saved equate to around 1000 tonne pa.

Cost to implement: approx $ 300,000 + interest say 10%
ROI = 3years.

Thereafter the company pocket savings of $120,000pa. Had the upgrade not been implemented, the annual tariff increases of say 10%pa would likely show that the initial saving of $120,000, becoming 159,000pa after 3years.

Which is to say that the annual account of $192.000pa now may increase @ 10%pa resulting in annual an energy bill of $255,552 3 years later.

In not upgrading for 3yrs the company will have needlessly wasted
> $300,000. of profits.
Ohh and they would have emitted another 3000 tonne of GHG in that time.

This is but one real live example. All be it a major one, but next time you go to bunnings or officeworks or DFS, glance up and count the Highbay lamps.
.
Its likely few if any any upgrades have been done recently because most major companies with numerous oulets are awaiting start of this Carbon trust scheme.
.
Other countries have had such or similar schemes successfully in operation for years.
Its past time we had the same incentive.
.
The loan or grant is to be subject to standard commercial approval criteria and repayment schedule.

There are few if any certainties in life, and there are few gov schemes which succeed delivering real benefit to the average bear, but this system is so simple it is virtually impossible to corrupt or fail.

It should be win, win, win, For the Taxpayer, for the consumers and for the community as awhole.
.
Ohh and the energy wholesalers… Well wont they just add a bit to their fees to cover some loss..

I may well stand corrected and so seriously welcome any comment, pro or adverse

thanks

The trust is a Taxpayer supported fund which essentially provides interest free (repayable) loans/grants to the business sector and others, for the purpose of upgrading and or replacing energy inefficient lamps and lighting equipment with latest energy saving products.

Repayment is funded via savings resulting from the upgrade.
EG: Where a company elctricity account for lighting was formerley
$30,000 pa
After upgrade and retro-fitting work is completed the account is reduced to say
$ 15,000 pa

Then repayment will be set at a max of $1250 pm until the loan/grant is totally repaid.
While an average loan/grant maybe be rapaid within 2 years other bigger projects may be from 1 – 7 years.

The key point is that as each project is completed repayment commence after the 1st month and so on.

So immeadiately the trust is instantly able to recycle $$$ perpetually ( perpetual motion if you like )

Thus this Carbon trust loan/grant scheme is perhaps the most instant and efficient form of assisting the country reduce electricity consumption and Greenhouse gas emission in one strike…!!
.
1kwh of electricity saved equates to approx 1kg of GHG emission

.
Think about it

Labor Outsider: it’s good to see you’ve torn yourself away from your dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models – or whatever it is economists do for fun – to join us.

Look, it’s true I defend a social democratic viewpoint fairly consistently. And we just happen to have a social democratic government at the moment. But I do it for a simple reason: very few others do it.

It’s my educated guess that those suscribing to a broadly social democratic viewpoint make up about a quarter to a third of the electorate. Yet you wouldn’t guess it reading the press or blogs. This very blog is a good example – apparently “everyone” doesn’t include that huge chunk of the electorate.

As an ALP member, I would have thought you would have picked up on that.

I hope I’ve never engaged in intellectual dishonesty to defend a Labor policy. Any previous stoushes we’ve had on policy I would still defend (that seems like a fair gauge of integrity).

Also, I like annoying Green supporters.

…..but you’re a worthy foe, Labor Outsider.

You just get the feeling sometimes that with some people Rudd simply can’t do anything right. Had he given the position to a Labor insider he’s be criticised as well. If he’d given the position to someone with no political affiliations he’d be criticised for some other reason.

EPIC FAIL