Electricity and Energy Sector Plan Discussion Paper (2024)

Policy Engagement Overview

InfluenceMap's database covers over 500 companies and 250 industry associations globally, with the most engaged entities updated on a weekly basis. The current state of corporate advocacy on this regulation is summarized below. The graph to the right of this page indicates InfluenceMap's capture of corporate positions on the policy, ranging from strong opposition to strong support.

InfluenceMap’s analysis of responses to the Electricity and Energy Sector Discussion Paper (the Paper) finds that the majority of corporate engagement on the Paper is misaligned with IPCC recommendations on limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Of the 41 companies in InfluenceMap’s LobbyMap database to submit a response to the Paper, 19 (46%) advocated for positions that are misaligned with IPCC guidance on the global use of gas in 1.5°C decarbonisation pathways. In contrast, 11 (27%) companies and associations advocated for the Plan to support the urgent decarbonisation of the electricity and energy sector and the transition from fossil fuels, while 11 (27%) entities appeared to support the objectives of the Paper with some exceptions.

Policy Engagement Trends

• Support for the Plans objectives to decarbonise Australia’s energy and electricity sectors by 2050 was led by several renewable energy industry groups as well as a range of companies across the energy, construction and metals and mining sectors. The Energy Efficiency Council, the Clean Energy Council and the Carbon Market Institute all advocated for the Electricity and Energy Sector Plan to implement long-term policy signals to drive continued renewable energy uptake while supporting Australia’s transition away from fossil fuels. Similar positions were expressed by Fortescue Metals Group and AGL, while Lendlease advocated for urgent investment to support the decarbonisation of Australia’s build environment sector via electrification.
• Entities from the aviation sector, including Qantas, Airlines for Australia & New Zealand, and the International Air Transport Association, advocated for the Plan to support policies to incentivise sustainable aviation fuel production in Australia. However, it is unclear if these calls are aligned with IPCC guidelines, scales or timeframes.
• While a number of companies and associations communicated on the need for government intervention to support a transition towards renewables and other low-emissions technologies such as nuclear, these entities also advocated for a technology neutral approach to the energy transition that appears to include continued support for fossil gas in various capacities. Entities in this group included the Business Council of Australia, Minerals Council of Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of WA, BHP and the APA Group.
• Oppositional responses appeared to be exclusively expressed by companies and industry associations representing the energy/utilities and metals/mining sectors, with 100% of the 19 entities to advocate in a manner misaligned with IPPC guidance on the global use of gas coming from these sectors. Companies in this group included Chevron, Senex and APA Group, while associations included the Australian Energy Producers (AEP) the Energy Users Association of Australia and the Australian Pipelines and Gas Association (APGA).
• All these groups advocated for government measures to support increased investment in fossil gas and fossil gas infrastructure, while Senex, the AEP and APGA also used their submissions to advocate for fossil gas to be included in Australia’s Capacity Investment Scheme, an initiative that aims to support the country’s renewable capacity by underwriting new renewable generation and storage.