Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2012 Week 7 Hansard (7 June) . . Page.. 3006..
(3) Wind information is available from Windlab Systems Pty Ltd, geothermal from Geoscience Australia, and solar from the Bureau of Meteorology. Detailed site specific assessments are expensive and it is not prudent for the Government to undertake these for the Territory as a whole.
(4) The Government is considering options to improve information on renewable energy resource availability and network capacity through the development of Weathering the Change Action Plan 2.
Environment—HEAT rebate (Question No 2327)
Mr Rattenbury asked the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, upon notice, on 3 May 2012:
(1) In relation to the HEAT rebate, what has the uptake of the rebate been (a) annually since the scheme was introduced, (b) amongst private home-owners, (c) amongst the rental sector of (i) private rentals and (ii) ACT housing and (d) amongst priority (low-income) households.
(2) What sorts of measures is the rebate most frequently used for.
(3) Why was the rebate threshold set at $2000.
(4) Why was the rebate payable time set at 6-12 months.
Mr Corbell: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
(1)(a) 2004-2005: 26 rebates claimed.
2005-2006: 256 rebates claimed.
2006-2007: 320 rebates claimed.
2007-2008: 423 rebates claimed.
2008-2009: 496 rebates claimed.
2009-2010: 433 rebates claimed.
2010-2011: 462 rebates claimed.
Although the person requesting the audit can be the owner-occupant, tenant, landlord or property manager the rebate can only be claimed by the owner of the property. Therefore the total uptake of the rebate is only by home-owners. Housing ACT and its tenants are not eligible to claim the HEAT rebate. The number of low income households accessing the rebate is unknown. Home-owners claiming rebates are not asked to indicate their income in their application.
(2) The most frequently claimed improvement measures are ceiling and cavity wall insulation, thermal window coverings, double glazing and draught sealing.
(3) The threshold of the $2,000 expenditure was chosen;
a) as a result of an investigation of programs being run in other states; and
b) being a sufficient amount of money to make purposeful infrastructure changes.