AGL must choose the least harmful pathway to 2050
By: Ketan Joshi
Tags: Sustainability, Climate Change, Coal, Australia, Renewables

This is, of course, a perfect example of what I’ve previously described as the ‘plump kitty curve’. By setting 2050 as a deadline for net zero, much of the action to actually reduce emissions can be back-loaded into the final decade. 2050 is a long time in the future. Prime Minister Scott Morrison will be 82 years old. Bob Katter will be 105. Pauline Hanson will be 96.

The line between now and 2050 can be ambitious, lazy or linear. Given the serious of the threat, ambition is the only moral option.

There needs to be policy pressure on output levels

It isn’t just the dates of shutdown that will decide the emissions harm from these machines. AGL say, in the report, that “Variance in the pace of emissions reduction between scenarios arises from varying load factors driven by the carbon constraints assumed in each scenario”. Put simply: ‘Load factor’ means how much power — and emissions — the thing spits out. Even before a plant shuts down, emissions will be far lower is there are policy constraints.

Under a 1.5C limit, Loy Yang doesn’t just close early — it’s also made to massively limit its output:

Globally, existing coal is shifting towards a trend where the plants simply output less power. That means they makes less money, despite the constant money for upkeep and maintenance. Unless AGL opts into a controlled, rapid shut-down of these plants, this will probably be their fate, too.

AGL are choosing a dark path — but can still change direction

On August 13, AGL released the full report, examining the four scenarios in more detail but essentially reaching the same conclusion — there are high emissions pathways to 2050, and low emissions pathways to 2050. There are diverging pathways to the same destination, with some that create more harm.

Sadly, buried in the heavy end of their report is the following paragraph (highlights my own):

“AGL operates within a highly regulated environment and our assets are critical to the continued reliability of the NEM in the short to medium term. While we are committed to the decarbonisation of our portfolio and expect the NEM to be at net zero by 2050, AGL is not able to make unilateral commitments to closing power stations in advance of government policy as this may lead to unintended outcomes. As such, AGL considers that setting targets to reduce our operated emissions in alignment with the requirements of the Science Based Target initiative (SBTi) is not currently practicable as this framework would require AGL to decarbonise by at least 50% by 2035. A commitment of this scale would require early closure or decreased generation output of part or all of AGL’s baseload generation fleet and could not be achieved unilaterally given the current regulatory framework in Australia”

It is strange to see a company so brazenly rejecting a pathway that follows the best scientific advice on protecting human life and the environment. But at the same time, AGL insists in the same report that “ Even when considering the deep decarbonisation required under the 1.5-degree scenario, AGL’s assets remain viable because of their low cost of operation and efficiency”. An optimistic, between-the-line reading might suggest the company is far more ready to engage in more rapid action, given the right external pressure.

It is, of course, true that the shutdown of coal ought to be carefully planned, and that federal policy and regulation needs to change. But we know that the Australian government doesn’t shift without pressure, and pressure from AGL, a titan in the industry, would be powerful. A plan to retire their most dangerous and harmful assets early to protect human life and welfare is the only logical and moral choice.

What happens between now and 2050 matters. AGL is, by their current declarations, on a dark path. But it is free to choose a pathway in which it engages in the comparatively simple task of replacing old technologies with new ones. That is far easier than allowing further harm to our only home.

The people who run the show at this company are holding the levers on how much climate harm is caused over the coming years, and it needs to make the right decision.