The Claim
“Blamed electricity price rises on the renewable energy target, despite their own modelling predicting that it will reduce electricity prices in the long term, and despite Energy Australia stating that it has suppressed prices since it was created.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core claim contains several interconnected assertions that require separate verification.
Assertion 1: The Coalition blamed electricity price rises on the renewable energy target.
This is PARTIALLY ACCURATE. The Abbott Coalition government did express concerns about the RET's impact on electricity prices during the 2014 RET Review, but the primary focus of their price-related rhetoric was on Labor's carbon tax (Clean Energy Act 2011), which they consistently blamed for electricity price increases [1]. The Coalition campaigned heavily on "axe the tax" and repealed the carbon pricing legislation in July 2014 [2].
Regarding the RET specifically, the government commissioned the Warburton Review in 2014 to examine the scheme. The review found that the RET would increase electricity prices for commercial and industrial customers to 2020, but would lower prices in the period out to 2040 [3]. This modelling does suggest short-term price increases, contrary to the claim's framing.
Assertion 2: Government modelling predicted the RET would reduce electricity prices in the long term.
This is TRUE. The Warburton Review (2014), commissioned by the Abbott government itself, found that while the RET would increase prices to 2020, it would lower electricity prices in the period out to 2040 [3]. ACIL Allen's modelling for the review indicated this long-term price reduction effect [3].
Assertion 3: Energy Australia stated that the RET has suppressed prices since it was created.
This claim appears to conflate different organizations and their positions. The Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA), whose members include major energy companies, expressed concerns about the carbon tax repeal creating uncertainty that could increase prices [4]. Separately, RenewEconomy reported in July 2014 that Queensland rooftop solar (supported by the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, part of the RET) was suppressing wholesale electricity prices during midday periods [5].
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical contextual factors:
The Carbon Tax vs. RET Distinction: The Coalition's primary target regarding electricity prices was Labor's carbon tax, not the RET. The carbon tax was introduced by the Gillard government in July 2012 at $23/tonne CO2, increased to $24.15/tonne in 2013-14, and was repealed by the Abbott government effective July 2014 [2]. The Coalition's rhetoric consistently conflated or prioritized the carbon tax's impact over the RET's impact on prices [1].
Labor Created the RET: The RET was originally a Labor policy commitment. Kevin Rudd announced in 2007 that a Labor government would ensure 20% of Australia's electricity supply (approximately 60,000 GWh or 41,000 GWh for new renewable generation) would come from renewable sources by 2020 [6]. The policy was designed to be technology-neutral and market-based [6].
Falling Electricity Demand: By 2014, electricity demand had fallen significantly from projections made when the RET was established. This meant the fixed 41,000 GWh target would represent closer to 23-27% of actual demand rather than the intended 20% [7]. The Abbott government used this to justify reducing the target to 33,000 GWh, arguing the original target had become too high [7].
Complex Price Drivers: Electricity prices are affected by multiple factors including network costs (transmission and distribution), wholesale energy costs, environmental schemes, and retail margins. During the 2010-2014 period, network costs were the largest driver of price increases, not renewable energy schemes [8].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Australian (2014): News Corp Australia publication with center-right editorial stance. Generally reputable but with documented conservative leaning on climate and energy policy [9].
SMH (Sydney Morning Herald): Nine Entertainment publication, mainstream center-left leaning. Generally reputable journalism [9].
RenewEconomy: Specialist renewable energy news site founded and edited by Giles Parkinson, formerly of the Australian Financial Review. Pro-renewables advocacy perspective - useful for industry data but should be cross-checked for balance [10].
The original claim sources appear generally credible for factual reporting, though RenewEconomy's editorial stance favors renewable energy and may frame stories accordingly.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
The RET was itself a Labor creation. The Rudd Labor government (2007-2010) established the 20% by 2020 target (equivalent to 41,000 GWh of new renewable generation), which was legislated in 2009 and 2010 [6].
Labor's approach to electricity prices: The Gillard government (2010-2013) implemented the carbon pricing scheme specifically to reduce emissions, accepting that this would increase electricity prices in the short term while providing household compensation [2]. Emissions from covered companies dropped 7% upon the carbon tax's introduction [2].
Key difference: Labor was more willing to accept price impacts for environmental outcomes and provided explicit compensation, while the Coalition campaigned on reducing electricity prices by removing the carbon tax [1][2].
Comparative context on RET: Both major parties supported the RET in principle, with the primary 2014 disagreement being the target level (41,000 GWh vs. 33,000 GWh) rather than the scheme's existence [7].
Balanced Perspective
The claim presents a selective framing of the 2014 RET debate. The full context includes:
Coalition Position: The Abbott government argued the 41,000 GWh target was too high given falling electricity demand and would impose unnecessary costs on consumers [7]. They used the Warburton Review's finding of short-term price increases (to 2020) to support their case for reducing the target, while downplaying the same review's finding of long-term price reductions [3].
Industry and Expert Views: The renewable energy industry argued that the RET provided investment certainty and would lower long-term prices through reduced exposure to volatile fossil fuel costs [5]. The Queensland solar example showed rooftop solar suppressing wholesale prices during peak generation periods [5].
Complexity: The electricity market involves multiple competing factors. Network costs, not the RET, were the dominant driver of residential price increases during this period [8]. The Coalition's focus on the carbon tax (which was repealed) versus their more nuanced approach to the RET (which was retained but modified) reflects this complexity.
Outcome: The Abbott government ultimately reduced the large-scale RET from 41,000 GWh to 33,000 GWh in June 2015, though they did not abolish the scheme entirely [7].
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim mixes accurate elements with misleading framing. The Warburton Review did find long-term price reductions from the RET (supporting part of the claim), and rooftop solar was documented as suppressing wholesale prices in Queensland [3][5]. However, the Coalition's primary focus was on the carbon tax rather than the RET regarding electricity price blame [1]. The claim also conflates different organizations' positions and omits that the RET itself was a Labor policy that both parties broadly supported, with disagreement only on target levels. The framing suggests hypocrisy, but the government did follow their review's findings by adjusting the target based on changed demand circumstances.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim mixes accurate elements with misleading framing. The Warburton Review did find long-term price reductions from the RET (supporting part of the claim), and rooftop solar was documented as suppressing wholesale prices in Queensland [3][5]. However, the Coalition's primary focus was on the carbon tax rather than the RET regarding electricity price blame [1]. The claim also conflates different organizations' positions and omits that the RET itself was a Labor policy that both parties broadly supported, with disagreement only on target levels. The framing suggests hypocrisy, but the government did follow their review's findings by adjusting the target based on changed demand circumstances.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (9)
-
1
sbs.com.au
Tony Abbott has scoffed at the electricity sector's view that his threat to repeal Labor's carbon tax will push up household energy bills from next year.
SBS News -
2
en.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia
-
3
climatechangeauthority.gov.au
Climatechangeauthority Gov
-
4PDF
140828 Renewable Energy Target Review
Energyproducers • PDF Document -
5
reneweconomy.com.au
Reneweconomy Com
-
6
parlinfo.aph.gov.au
Parlinfo Aph Gov
-
7
sciencedirect.com
Sciencedirect
-
8
abc.net.au
A decade and a half after an energy company CEO outlined his greatest fears for Australia's economic future — no carbon price — the nation again appears set for a renewed battle over climate policy and power generation.
Abc Net -
9PDF
ret factsheet final
Energycouncil Com • PDF Document
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.