Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr Clive Blanchard’s letter published in the February Issue of CCN on why an air conditioner levy is not a bad idea. 

I agree with Clive that many people make a decision to buy an air conditioner without a full realisation of the cost, energy, and environmental implications of that decision.  But this applies to hundreds of other purchase decisions.  When people buy:

• an electric water heater instead of a solar type;
• a 1 or 2 star fridge instead of a 5 star model;
• a top loading washing machine instead of a front loading washer;
• incandescent instead of fluorescent lights;
• a 4WD when they live in the city;
• a low energy efficiency rating house.

A purchase of any of the above items involves the same decision making process. To be fair, there would need to be a levy on all these types of purchases.

And a levy only (marginally) affects someone’s decision to buy an air conditioner.  Once they have purchased it, the levy adds to their desire to use the appliance to get full value– just like the incentive to use your car instead of public transport because you have already paid the registration, insurance and depreciation.

If the levy (or tax) is applied to air conditioners based on their energy consumption for cooling, perhaps a rebate should be pursued for reverse cycle heating operation (300% efficient) and a levy applied to resistive fan heaters which are highly inefficient energy users. Many Australian homes need heating as well as cooling, particularly in inland areas. If you use an evaporative cooler in the summer, what would you use as your heating source, considering the options below? (Relative efficiencies as listed in the SEDA data).

 Evaporative coolers provide a useful alternative to refrigerated air conditioners in some circumstances. Unfortunately they do not de-humidify or heat and are large users of water. They are a useful low cost compromise in both inland Australia and low humidity areas, but don’t necessarily suit today’s desire for total comfort.

 Our industry has a great environmental record.  We have worked closely with government on ozone depletion, equipment efficiency measures and refrigerant reporting and we would co-operate with any fair measures for greenhouse abatement.  But an air conditioner levy is not a fair or effective measure.  It targets only the one appliance. 

 Let’s not forget the original reason the levy was proposed.  It was to compensate electricity suppliers for the cost of upgrading their plant to meet peak demand.  On that basis the levy should apply proportionally to every appliance in a house or business according to its contribution to peak demand.

 We do not feel a levy is the best solution to greenhouse abatement and a very poor solution to under-investment by electricity suppliers.  I’m proud of our industry’s environmental record and of the great improvement in the efficiency of domestic air conditioners.

 Signed

Rod King
President

PO Box 3961 Manuka ACT 2603 phone 02 6239 5652 fax 02 639 5653 www.arema.com.au

e-mail: secretariat@arema.com.au