Cristina Talacko | This energy crisis is different and it should be treated as such

Whilst the shocks suffered in the 70s were all about oil, the current energy disturbances are multidimensional: it involves oil but also natural gas, coal, electricity, food security, supply chains and climate challenges.

The task faced by governments in the 70s was relatively transpicuous: reduce dependency on oil imports.

By contrast, today's crisis will require much more than just moving away from a single energy commodity, but to change the nature of the entire energy system.

There is no silver bullet this time, and the challenge will be how this massive transition can be done in an orderly and equitable way, maintaining affordable and reliable energy supply.

In practice, the energy crisis means that globally 75 million people that recently gained access to electricity are likely to lose the ability to pay for it, and that 100 million people that have gained access to cooking with clean fuels may forgo it on cost grounds, returning instead to the use of traditional biomass, according to the IEA.

And for those who believe the answer is purely more investment, the bad news is five years after the Paris Agreement, the amount of investment going into energy transitions remained flat at around USD $1 trillion per year, not enough to support a deeper transformation of the global energy system.

At home, Australia is already taking the bullet and the government has started to address the spike on coal and gas prices by introducing short-time interventionist measures to alleviate the pockets of Australian consumers.

But market interventions can cause distortions and create uncertainty affecting investment decisions.

The government must avoid the temptation to produce piecemeal legislation going off half cooked when it comes to managing the bumpy road ahead.

To tackle the energy crisis with the precedence it deserves, we need a well-designed and comprehensive nationally integrated energy plan. One that will accelerate meaningful structural change, attract investment, and secure the future of Australians.

We need a plan that strikes the right balance between decarbonisation and reliability and affordability, with a timeline identifying how each source of energy and technology will play its part until we close the storage and base load gap.

It must include an operational plan that addresses the short-, medium-, and long-term supply issues and take a pragmatic and apolitical approach when it comes to the types of clean technologies it includes in its route map to carbon neutrality, defining the role of coal, gas, renewables, and even nuclear power to secure energy independence in the future.

It must be linked to industrial policy, economics, and environmental policy, defining scenarios and projections that account for population growth, demographic trends, energy demand, supply chain and industrial production.

READ MORE:

It must be designed with extensive engagement from the state governments, industry, and power system experts, considering the policies and challenges at state level, the capabilities and peculiarities of each region, and the needs of the vastly different communities in Australia.

A successful transition must also be just and weigh the needs of the low-income urban residents, the youth, the rural smallholder farmers, remote Indigenous communities as well as all other segments of society.

If we look at the domestic transport sector in Australia, we will find one of the best examples of a fractured strategy where the states have set their own policies without national integration.

Various initiatives created with the aim to incentivise the uptake of electric vehicles have not included proper analysis on metrics and the real impact on the environment.

The Motor Trade Association warned the Albanese government in its submission to the National Electric Vehicle Strategy Consultation Paper, that "an uncoordinated and ad-hoc transition will lead to worse outcomes for both automotive businesses and consumers".

The MTA does not recommend in setting vehicle specific targets as "they unfairly distort the market and do not take into consideration nuance and specificity in certain sectors of the market, for example in regional areas where a hydrogen, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or even a more efficient ICE (internal combustion engine) would be more appropriate than a battery electric vehicle."

The federal government's current stated goal is to have charging stations at an average interval of 150 kilometres on major roads, but the MTA submitted that "The benchmark for public charging stations is one charging station for every 10 EVs and charging banks of between six to eight chargers every 50 to 75km along major highways".

The MTA also submitted that it opposes bans on internal combustion engine cars, claiming this would "limit consumer choice and remove options for meeting car owners' needs and Australia's emission reduction targets. Adding penalties onto ICE vehicles, particularly second-hand vehicles will cause a drop in trade-in value for those switching to ZLEV for the first time".

Therefore, a well-thought nationally integrated plan done in consultation with the states, experts and community is needed if wish to decarbonise the transport sector in an effective way.

At COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, I had the pleasure of meeting an impressive Stanford Scholar and successful energy entrepreneur whose family survived the 1994 Rwanda genocide that killed 800,000 people in less than 90 days.

He shared with us a story of collaboration that resonated with our group of legislators, on how his family survived the atrocities by hiding in an underground tunnel for 22 days, with 17 other survivors.

Under unimaginable stress, they got through this horrific experience by coming together utilising their talents, skills, and strengths, in a spirit of consultation and cooperation when everything seemed messy and hopeless.

They overcame their crisis by coordinating their actions short-, medium-, and long-term finding solutions in a moment of tremendous uncertainty: the value of one, the power of all, was the sure way to succeed.

Today, as in the tunnel, we are facing several crises. We are undergoing an energy transformation at a global scale, being forced to change how we produce and use energy, as well as put in place radical climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience measures.

One thing is certain: the measure of success for an energy transition that secures affordable and reliable generation to all Australians will depend on developing and implementing an integrated national energy plan in consultation with states, experts, economists, business and industry, and most of all, through the engagement with communities, coming up with local solutions, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.