Home Audio Transcription Transcript: Energy Insiders Podcast interview with Simon Corbell

Transcript: Energy Insiders Podcast interview with Simon Corbell

12
0


This is a lightly edited transcript of the recent Energy Insiders podcast with Simon Corbell.

Order Transcription Services

Giles Parkinson  00:29

Hello, and welcome to this latest episode of the Energy Insiders podcast. My name is Giles Parkinson and I’m the editor of Renew Economy and also One Step Off the Grid and The Driven, the EV focused website. Joining me as usual is David Leitch  from ITK, David, I trust you are well?

David Leitch  00:48

I’m well, and it’s also a welcome to our very special guest this week.

Giles Parkinson  00:52

Yes, it’s great to have rejoining us actually, a prior guest, Simon Corbell. Now the Chief Executive of the Clean Energy Investment Group. Simon, thanks for joining us.

Simon Corbell  01:07

Thanks very much, Giles. Good to be here. And great to join you again, David as well.

Giles Parkinson  01:11

Well, it is great to have you here because you’ve played sort of multiple and very important roles in the energy transition in Australia. First as the climate and energy, or maybe both, I’m not too sure which, but with the ACT and just pushing through that landmark achievement of 100% renewables and setting in motion all the other things that have been followed through by your successor, Shane Rattenbury, and also you played a key role in Victoria as a renewable energy advocate, and now have shifted over to the Clean Energy Investment Group.

So interesting times at the moment, because we’re seeing politics played out in Australia, we’re seeing politics on the international stage with Glasgow, and we’ve just got this reality of will people invest or not? And, sadly, your latest survey from your membership group, which you can probably explain to us more about, is not that confident about investing? In fact,  they’re basically not investing, at least not much at the moment, but they’ve got a bucket load of capital. Who are they? And why aren’t they investing?

Simon Corbell  02:12

Yeah, thanks, Giles. The Clean Energy Investor Group is a group of 17 investors in the clean energy sector in the Australian market. And collectively they hold about 50% of the clean energy generation assets currently operational in the NEM. So they are a very significant group of long term asset owners. And we’re comprised of businesses that both develop and then hold a position in their assets once they become operational, or they are funds who come in and obviously purchase those assets and construct them and bring them to operational status, and then hold them for that period of their operation.

So our members have come together as a group, because of their concerns around the risks associated with developing clean energy assets in the Australian market. And what our latest survey has confirmed is that, despite the federal government’s commitment of net zero by 2050, it really hasn’t shifted the dial when it comes to investor sentiment. And our investor members have said  in our first quarterly survey that we’ll be undertaking every quarter moving forward, that they consider the cost of equity risk premium in the Australian market has either remained unchanged, or in fact, has potentially deteriorated. And when we think about that cost of equity premium, you know, it’s around 100 to 250 basis points, based on a previous piece of research we’ve done, and that means that Australia is paying more than it needs to to get its clean energy assets built. That means consumers are paying more. But it also means that many investors are simply not proceeding with their investments, and they are choosing other markets where that risk premium doesn’t exist, and where it’s easier to get projects built.

David Leitch  04:16

So you know, I won’t hand back the Giles, but I’ll just observe that my work is that a 1% extra on the weighted average cost of capital that investors require is somewhere between $5 and $10 a megawatt hour of extra costs to consumers.

Simon Corbell  04:34

Yeah, that’s right, David. And I think you know, when you think about it as up to 250 basis points, which is within the range that we surveyed our members on when we developed our Investor Principles Document back in August, it’s simply unacceptable that an economy like Australia that is competing with other OECD markets, North America, Europe, parts of Asia, that it’s seeing that level of risk premium for investment.

Giles Parkinson  05:01

It’s a shocking level of risk premium. I mean, look, there’s obviously other factors as well, a lot of it to do with the management and some of the details of the market and transmission, which we’ve talked about before. But let’s just stick for a moment just on the federal policy. Can you explain why the federal government, having  reached what they described as this momentous decision, but others may sort of poopoo it a bit, but it’s got to net zero by 2050. Why isn’t that a trigger for more investment?

Simon Corbell  05:26

Because there’s no clear roadmap around what decarbonisation looks like in the NEM and the transition through to a fully netzero NEM, to enable 2050, Net Zero economy wide to be realized. We all understand that you don’t get to net zero in the last five years of that pledge period, you get to net zero by building out the capability of the economy, to be electrified, to be zero emissions, and to do that, you need to build the generation assets, and importantly, the transmission assets, well ahead of that timeframe. And so we would say as an investor group, we need to be planning for effectively, decarbonisation of the electricity supply sector by 2035.

So that’s just over a decade away. That means we’ve got to build a lot more transmission much more quickly than we are at the moment. We need to have a very clear timeframe around when coal assets are going to exit and when new generation is required. And we just don’t have any of that detail in the way the market is developed, or run.

Giles Parkinson  06:43

Yeah, I’ll let David ask a question after this one. So AEMO have a plan, or at least they’re producing a plan. They already have the integrated system plan, which kind of decarbonizes the grid by 2040. It’s pretty clear now that they’re going to come up with the updated plan in a couple of months, which is going to give  how that’s done by 2035. You’ve got people like TransGrid talking about 91% renewables by 2030. You’ve got the State governments acting with their own plans, particularly in New South Wales. Why is it important for the Federal government to be more proactive?

Simon Corbell  07:17

Well it is more important for the market bodies as a whole to be more proactive. And I would  disagree with you somewhat in relation to the  importance of the integrated system plan. It is important, but you have to remember that the integrated system plan actually sets out a range of scenarios, and the current scenario that’s used for planning purposes by AEMO, and therefore by the other market bodies in considering transmission upgrade and so on, is actually a scenario that assumes a plus three to plus four degree temperature outcome in terms of the contribution of the electricity supply sector to Australia’s decarbonisation efforts.

So at the moment, we’re using  a market planning scenario, that is completely out of line with not only our commitments in relation to the Paris Agreement, but certainly well out of line with broader global investor sentiment and broader geopolitical sentiment around how much more quickly we have to do this task. So the Federal government has a really important role in in providing that leadership through to the market bodies along with the states and really achieving a consensus on decarbonisation has to happen more quickly. We need to be planning for that accordingly, and adopting a much more progressive planning scenario in the NEM. And that would send a really clear signal to investors that the market bodies are planning for decarbonisation by 2035. At the moment, their scenario planning does not anticipate that outcome.

David Leitch  08:56

So, you know, I would say that the people I talked to look at the stepchange version of the ISP, which indeed was developed mostly before the full New South Wales roadmap was developed. But that’s not, as you say, necessarily the scenario that actually is adopted for formal planning purposes, even though it’s, I think, the actual scenario that we’re on to the extent…. so that’s point one. In regard to the point that Giles made before about the Federal government, why it hasn’t changed its’ investor attitudes. It’s because for two reasons.

The first one is that essentially it views decarbonisation as in some ways has been achieved in Australia, talks about net zero, it talks about carbon capture and storage for coal for instance, which if you applied it to generation would simply raise the coal generation, the cost of coal generation a lot from where it is now, even assuming it was technically possible. And in fact, the last time I looked, it took about 30% more coal to do carbon capture and storage. The energy you actually use in doing that, than just producing the generation. And we already know that a wind and solar based system with some firming is cheaper than existing coal, let alone new coal with carbon capture and storage. So it’s inherently an implausible scenario to start with. And then it also bets on, you know, what can only be regarded as very risky things like a big hydrogen market in Australia. How can you promote coal and hydrogen at the same time? You know, it doesn’t quite make sense. So there’s no sense or logic to it. And at the same time, you’re appointing a resources minister that positively doesn’t like renewables and makes no secret about it.

You know, I, I don’t want to harp on federal politics, because I actually think it’s as irrelevant now as it’s always been. And I don’t actually think, with all due respect, Simon, that the Labour Party’s published views as they stand at the moment, are necessarily any better. They’re running a small target and that’s fine. But, you know, in regard to electric vehicles, I look at the photograph of Scott Morrison  going to Victoria, almost exact opposite of Bill Shorten last election who went up to Queensland, now we see Scott Morrison in Victoria with a smiling face, refuelling an EV, which is very analogous to the photograph of Barnaby Joyce, you know, turning up at a wind farm in his electorate New England. It’s just, you know, my school teacher ‘Piggy’ Kane back in 1967, used to tell me, “David Leitch,” when I handed in a blank book with no notes in it for my maths homework which I did every week, he’d say “Leitch,  you don’t tell a lie, you act a lie”. And that’s what those photographs are, they’re lies.

Simon Corbell  12:03

Well, I think  I’ll leave that leave that commentary to you David. But all I would add is, I think, you know, when we think about investor sentiment and the importance of the federal government, you are looking at whether there’s either headwinds or tailwinds when it comes to investment, and many of our members invest in other markets, you know, they invest in the North American market, they invest in the European market, and  their headquarters, deploying their capital, making an assessment of relative markets and relative risk. And the Australian market has got all the headwinds. And other markets increasingly are seeing tailwinds.

So particularly, obviously, with the election of Biden administration in the US, lots of tailwinds in terms of opportunity for clean energy development, and indeed, for hydrogen development associated with that. So you know, with new tax credit arrangements, and so on. So these are factors that investors take into account. And then when you look at the problems with getting connected, the problems with risks of curtailment, all of those issues that are very specific issues of market design, but incredibly important when it comes to whether or not you can predict with confidence the revenues you’re going to get from a project if you proceed to final investment decision. That is, these are the issues that our members are really struggling with and why we need a coming together between the states and the federal government on what we’re planning for and the direction we’re going in. And as you say, David, at the moment, we still see a lot of incongruence there to say the least.

Giles Parkinson  13:36

Well I think you’re being very unfair on Keith Pitt actually, David, he did notice that solar doesn’t generate at night. So I think he’s probably spot on on that thing. So can we just get back to the NEM scenario planning? It’s true.actually, and other people have actually pointed this out to me and I probably should take more notice, that yes, because they are operating on the central scenario, which you say is heading towards disastrous 4 degrees, a  bit like the IEA central scenarios,  that sort of increases, it creates uncertainty, it increases the cost of capital.

So if AEMO is saying on one hand, we’re going step change as David observed, in fact, we’re actually going beyond that and quickly, then why the hell is the central scenario still that planning blueprint? Is it because as you say, the federal government haven’t told them to, and the federal government to be honest, hasn’t really given the ISP that much amplification. And if that’s the case, how do we get that to change? Does it have to come from the federal government or do ….?

Simon Corbell  14:35

Well, it’s good question. And it is the case, as you’ve pointed out, that the central scenario is the scenario adopted for planning purposes at the moment, including what are the requirements in terms of transmission build out and the relative cost benefit in terms of timeliness of that build out. So I think it would be fair to say that historically, the market bodies have said, well, it’s not their role to participate in a political debate about the pace of decarbonisation in the Australian economy. That’s the role for governments. And so they’ve tried to adopt a much more sort of neutral position, conscious of the views of their political masters. And whilst the states collectively now are in a very strong position in terms of the aggressiveness of their decarbonisation timetables, you don’t get a change to an adoption of a say step change planning scenario, without the federal government also being in the tent. I mean, it’s simply not the case that all the states can agree on one particular approach, and the Feds adopt a different approach, but because you’ve got more states and feds, then it’s okay. It’s not the way it works. You need unanimity. You need consensus across all levels of government. And in the absence of that, you know, AEMO, the AEMC and others, are not going to tread on the toes of their political masters.

Now I would say that there are reasons, we are getting to the point where there are good reasons for the market bodies to give consideration to why they are statutory entities in the first place, why they are independent, why they have protections around their independence, and perhaps think about the leadership position they can provide on planning for a decarbonisation approach in the NEM, which is actually consistent with the reality that we’re facing, with the requirements we’re going to face politically, internationally, and certainly consistent with what investors globally are looking for when they come to make decisions about where they deploy their capital.

Giles Parkinson  16:46

And many of your members do have all that money, they’re spread across multiple countries, and they are making that choice, aren’t they?

Simon Corbell  16:54

They really are. For example, John Martin, the new CEO of Windlab, who was one of our members from the very beginning, said to ABC radio yesterday that they’re deploying very significant amounts of funds in Africa, and North America, but they aren’t in Australia. And so that really speaks to the problems that we see in the Australian market. And we say there are ways forward on addressing that. But  we need to recognize that the process we’re working through now in Australia is, in terms of the decarbonisation of the NEM, is a capital intensive business in a way that we have not really seen in the NEM since perhaps well before the NEM existed. So we need to be able to pull capital in, it needs to be low cost capital, and that’s only going to happen if investors can have a reasonable level of predictability around their revenues. That they’re not going to face unreasonable or undue constraints or curtailment or delays and getting connected. All of those issues that many people  listening to this podcast will be familiar with but which are critical to whether or not you’re able to achieve a final investment decision on a wind, solar, or battery project.

Giles Parkinson  18:21

So it’s interesting given your comments about the current investment, looking to the future green hydrogen seems to be one of the big themes. Andrew Forrest is doing a lot of braggawatts at the moment, talking about  deals here, there and everywhere, although we have yet to actually see a defined project. But still, that is the focus of the future. There’s an awful lot of wind and solar developers looking at green hydrogen as a potential cause for their projects to be built and demand created. Australia though, as you point out, is competing internationally with green hydrogen money. What do we need to make sure that we don’t miss out on that investment? Because it must be no different, I’m presuming, from the national electricity market, or is there subtle differences?

Simon Corbell  19:12

I think it’s a really good question, Giles. And the first observation I’d make is that enabling green hydrogen manufacture means enabling Renewable Energy Zone Development. And that means that enabling high quality firm access to the transmission networks and without a clear regime that delivers firm access, not just within REZs, which the states are very focused on, particularly, most recently, the New South Wales Government,  but also ensuring that there is a reasonable level of firm access in the broader NEM, because we still will see many projects built in the broader NEM and not just within REZs, and indeed, policy documents like the New South Wales roadmap assume a level of development in the broader NEM, not just within New South Wales REZs. So we still need to get the transmission right if we’re to enable green hydrogen manufacture, because of  the very clear link between green hydrogen manufacture and the requirement for cheap, abundant wind and solar generation. So that’s the first point I’d make.

I think the second is, you know,  we’ve got a target in terms of price per tonne that the federal government has set itself to reduce the cost of green hydrogen. And that’s a welcome policy setting from the federal government. But there isn’t a strong financial tool in place to incentivize that. We are now seeing the states starting to do that. For example they’re incentivizing developments where if you are building for green hydrogen they’re saying that they will provide a very significant rebate on the the charge you have to access the grid, your grid access charges and so on. So that’s a very strong signal. But in other markets overseas we’re seeing a very aggressive tax credit arrangement, particularly in the US. And I think the real risk here is that unless we get grid right, and unless we have sufficient pull factors in place, all the talk about green hydrogen in Australia will be for nothing, because other markets will have moved more quickly to capture those opportunities on the ground. And that I think, is the fundamental risk and issue that we’re facing. So we need more pull factors, as well as streamlining the development of the infrastructure that enables green hydrogen, which is fundamentally better transmission.

Giles Parkinson  22:01

And look, David has recovered and he’s back and joining us. So go ahead, David.

David Leitch  22:05

Thanks, Simon. Look, we’ve talked a lot about New South Wales, I noticed that Queensland also announced its first REZ the other day up around Cairns for 500 megawatts. I just wondered how you felt the attitude of the other states,in  not just talking the talk, but in actually walking the walk besides New South Wales, is what you’re seeing?

Simon Corbell  22:29

Yeah, well, I think certainly New South Wales is has well and truly got out of the gate, ahead of a number of the other jurisdictions. To be fair, Victoria was in front of New South Wales with the Victorian Renewable Energy Auction process. But in terms of REZ development, I think each state has different circumstances. Victoria is always going to have brownfield REZ development, you know, sort of coming in and filling in the gaps that already that are there, rather than doing completely greenfield REZ development. So it’s a very different environment in Victoria, so we can expect a different policy response there. But their announcements around Vic grid, and having a much more interventionist approach on the part of the state to drive the transmission augmentation that’s required to create that brownfield REZ environment. I think it’s really important. That’s going to potentially require a lot of capital. And we haven’t seen enough detail, I think yet in terms of the capital requirements that Victoria will need around that. In Queensland, Queensland have I think still got some way to go to really frame out their REZ framework and how they’re going to operationalize their REZ development. It’s one thing to announce a REZ, it’s another to actually operationalize it and get it on the ground. And I know that there’s a lot of work happening inside the Queensland Government and the department in developing the policy framework. And I just trust that the political leaders there are really giving sufficient weight to making sure that gets through in as timely away as possible, because we do need to see, Queensland in particular, matching New South Wales in terms of the breadth and pace of the  REZ framework for that jurisdiction. Because Queensland and New South Wales are really the two really significant growth markets for clean energy development if we are to see that decarbonisation by 2035 scenario achieved.

David Leitch  24:41

That’s right. You know, we’ve also got the aluminium smelters, one of each in Queensland and New South Wales where Rio signaled a different approach and that has implications in Queensland for the Gladstone power station. You know, Simon, without being too political about it, how confident would you be as an investor about Queensland actually getting to its 50% target by 2030? They’ve got a lot of work to do for sure.

Simon Corbell  25:08

They do have a lot of work to do. And I think the time it’s taken to get to where they’re at in terms of REZ development frameworks has been slow. And we would certainly encourage the Queensland Government to be moving more quickly. So I think there is clearly an imperative to do that, because a lot of new development is going to be required in Queensland. And you make the point absolutely right about Boyne smelter and the the criticality of the decarbonisation task there. What’s really welcome is that those commercial interests like Rio are now really starting to shape and influence that debate in a way that I think can be a real positive. But yeah, I think much more work to be done in Queensland at this point. But, you know, we certainly encourage the Queensland Government to move as quickly as they can.

David Leitch  26:04

Just on a point beforehand, back to Giles again, quickly, the Clean Energy Investor Group, and then we’ve got the CEC and we’ve got the Smart Energy Council. There’s a lot of groups running around the place. You know why do you guys exist that the CEC or the Smart Energy Council wasn’t actually doing?

Simon Corbell  26:27

Well, we came together because investors felt there needed to be a clear and focused voice for investors in the market. Our colleagues in the Clean Energy Council, our colleagues in the Smart Energy Council cover a much broader field. The CEC covers, not just investors, but they also cover OEM, EPC. They cover small scale household installers, technology providers, so it’s a much broader church, if you like. And the Smart Energy Council equally much more focused on a lot of the household and rooftop market, and all the suppliers and installers that operate in that sector.

So like any other sector of the economy, there are different voices to try and bring a different and particular focus. The Clean Energy Investor Group is the voice of capital. Our members are only people who invest in and own clean energy assets, and are bringing and deploying the low cost capital needed for the transition. So that’s our mission, to make sure that governments and the market bodies hear the investor voice much more clearly, and much more consistently. And I’ve been really pleased with the level of support we’ve had from our members and from other companies who have joined us, since we established ourselves as a standalone, independent and permanent industry voice for investors in the clean energy sector.

Giles Parkinson  28:03

Here’s another question for both of you, actually. I’m interested to get your impressions on Glasgow. We haven’t quite seen the end result of Glasgow, but I think we’ve got to fair picture of where things are heading to. Simon, you first and then maybe David. What’s your impressions of what’s being said, what’s been done and what it means?

Simon Corbell  28:21

Well, look, I think, you know, it’s incremental, rather than a Paris like moment.But it’s not Copenhagen either. So I think that we are seeing an outcome in Glasgow that perhaps lacks the punch of a Paris outcome, but still sees some incremental progress. I think the most disappointing thing really has been that as a middle power, Australia has not been able to fully capitalize on its standing and the level of ambition that exists domestically, with investors, with the community, to address the challenge of global warming and respond to the economic and social consequences all in a way that we’re seeing happen right around our country. It’s a pity that those things are not able to be communicated through our national government at times. But there have been some good and welcome developments. And I trust, particularly with the announcement in the last 24 hours about the agreement between the US and China, that there’s some additional momentum to get some critical discussions across the line before it wraps up at the end of this week.

David Leitch  29:40

Well, I think you need to look at in the Southeast Asian context more than anything. So you know, India, for instance, said that it was do 500 gigawatts of new renewables, and this is the trouble with trying to understand how serious these countries are. Indonesia, the world’s largest coal exporter, larger even in Australia, has said that it wants to get rid of coal by 2040. But clearly never going to do that unless it’s helped a lot. It just can’t do it. Vietnam, which is going to be one of the largest non China growth countries for coal is has signed up for 2040. As has South Korea. Australia’s third, second or third largest customer depending on how you count. So those are those are big announcements.

And then you’ve got the surprising negative that Japan I mean, I can understand in one sense, why India, why Russia, why China and Australia didn’t sign up to ending coal. I mean, we are big coal exporters. So you can understand the business lobby against it. You don’t agree with it at all, but you can understand it. But why Japan, a coal customer and energy importer isn’t signing up is a complete mystery to me. So there’s that side of things.

Other than that, really, I think it’s just a matter of we’re gradually working towards it, but we all know that, that if we keep these commitments, we’re on track for, I don’t know, two degrees say. What we don’t really know is what two degrees will actually do to the world. That’s one of the issues. And we know that a lot more progress has got to be made. And we can do it very cost effectively. We can all see that. What about electric vehicle policy? The coalition government came out with its own future fuel strategy, appropriately acronymed, FFS. Simon, could you hold your either your laughter or your anger when you saw that?

Simon Corbell  31:38

Well, I think the lessons still need to be learned from the experience of the renewable energy sector where clear targets and clear mechanisms to pull forward demand delivered results. And whether that’s through the federal RET, or whether that’s through state based reverse auction frameworks or similar procurement outcomes, the fact is that pull mechanisms have delivered results, brought down the cost of deployment, brought down the balance of plant costs that were a challenge less than a decade ago, particularly with solar. So we know what works. And we need to have a similar approach with electric vehicles. It is great that there’s grant funding for a range of electric vehicle initiatives. But there still needs to be a mechanism that pulls forward demand through economic measures of some sort, or taxation measures of some sort. And that’s really what’s fundamentally missing. And I think that’s pretty much the universal view from all the commentary I’ve seen. It’s one thing to have a target, but it’s another to say you’re going to realize that target unless you’ve got a mechanism to achieve it.

Giles Parkinson  32:58

David, I’m interested getting your view, but I do want to point out that Scott Morrison was not recharging a car there. He was actually refueling a hydrogen car, from at least two other things. So that was quite an interesting juxtaposition. But anyway, your view on it?

David Leitch  33:12

Oh, sorry, I didn’t realize that, it comes to the same thing. Look, my view is firstly, I would observe that in Australia, actually, we do tax oil, quite, and oil and petrol consumption pretty heavily. So there is that already. It’s the equivalent of a carbon price, it’s already in there on petrol and just want to observe that in making these other points. It’s very clearly in Australia’s interest to move to electric vehicles.

We import $20/ $30 billion net basis each year of oil. And we could get rid of a lot of that. And you know, over 10 years that’s $300 billion of imports that you could  substantially reduce to the benefit of every Australian by moving towards EVs and taking advantage of our natural resources. The second thing is that no matter what policy you put in place, right at this very short term moment, it won’t make any difference, because the industry is totally supply constrained. You can’t produce enough electric vehicles.

The third thing is Australia doesn’t get any electric vehicles, because they go to Europe largely, because Europe has these emission standards that essentially force manufacturers to sell some EVs there or they can’t sell any cars at all. So we need that. It’s not just a long term target, we need good government policy. It would be a carbon tax, quite frankly, or carbon price. Every economist will say the same thing.essentially. If you can’t have that, then you need a policy of where you want to get to, a penetration rate, a target, and some way of achieving it, you know, and there are a variety of mechanisms Simon’s described.

Giles Parkinson  34:49

Just a final wrap up before we get going. Just a couple observations about what’s happened in the last week. David, I don’t know whether you’ve got any particular things that you want to mention. I just wanted to point out some of the records  that keep on tumbling around the grid. Particularly in South Australia where we have negative demand.

David Leitch  35:04

Well, yes, Giles. And I think the thing about the negative demand is the fact that the the network can actually manage it. Bullshit to all these solar export taxes so forth, or that, you know, the network’s can’t manage a lot of solar. Clearly they can manage a negative flow through the whole thing, make the river flow backwards.

Giles Parkinson  35:24

Very good. Simon, do you’d like to answer that?

Simon Corbell  35:27

I think David has been very comprehensive in his answer.

Giles Parkinson  35:32

Very good. David, anything else to add before we wrap up for the day?

David Leitch  35:36

Ah, no, that’s it.

Giles Parkinson  35:39

That’s it. Well, Simon, thank you very much for joining the Energy Insiders once more and good luck. Hopefully we’ll find a way to crack open  that planning scenario and get it ratcheted up to the to the step change, or this new hydrogen superpower. We’re heading that direction as you point out, and we should be planning accordingly.

Simon Corbell  36:00

Absolutely. And thanks very much for having me, Giles and David, it’s always a pleasure to speak to you.

Giles Parkinson  36:06

Don’t hang up right now because I was going to say thank you very much to not just Simon and David, but our sponsors, Evergen and Pylon for your ongoing continuous support. And thanks to everybody out there also for listening in. A pretty good Solar Insiders podcast earlier this week, too. And we also did a Driven podcast with Bill Shorten, which is wonderfully timed because Bill Shorten, of course, was one of the architects of the policies that Labour brought to the election last time. Ridiculed by the Morison government and Bill Shorten has actually been quite instrumental in actually changing the rules around what sort of cars the parliament MPs in federal parliament can get for the ministerial or parliamentary duties, and he was the first to actually get a electric vehicle and he’s gone out and bought a Tesla Model three. So it’s interesting to hear his views on that and on Morrison’s EVs policy, so thank you everyone. Thanks for listening, and we’ll be back again next week. Bye for now.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here