The National Party’s decision to abandon its support for Net Zero emissions is based on a report that contains a large mistake. How large? Over $100 billion.
What happened: The Nationals dropped net zero largely based on a report written by the Nationals-aligned Page Research Centre (Page), described by party leader David Littleproud as a “policy document” when he presented it to Opposition leader Sussan Ley.
The report claims that coal is cheaper than renewables, saying: “Independent modelling by Arche Energy found that an ultra-supercritical coal plant could supply electricity for around $82 per megawatt hour, compared to $145 per megawatt hour for solar, wind and battery combinations.”
But the report has a major flaw: it models the long term costs of coal as if brand-new coal plants already exist in Australia. This leaves out the over $100 billion it would actually cost to build them, and it ignores the tens of billions in grid upgrades that coal generation would still require.
Is the claim that coal is cheaper true? No.
Solar and wind are the lowest-cost new power sources in nearly every market in the world.
This has been supported by international analyses from the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as well as the 2025 GenCost report produced by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator, which shows renewables are now the cheapest form of new electricity generation in Australia - even after accounting for storage and transmission costs.
But then why are the Nats saying otherwise? The Page report says extending every major coal plant for another 20 years would cost $10–12 billion.
At the same time, it says “ultra-supercritical coal plant[s] could supply electricity for around $82 per megawatt hour”.
And here’s the catch: Australia doesn’t have any ultra-supercritical coal plants. And building them would cost nearly $100 billion more than refurbishing the ones we already have.
The Page report keeps the performance numbers of new coal plants, but drops the construction costs, creating an apples to oranges cost comparison.
This must be some kind of mistake: When asked what the construction cost would be to achieve $82 per megawatt hour for coal, the report’s author, Gerard Holland, told the National Account:
“I think we came to a figure of about $108 billion…please do go and check the numbers that are in that initial report.”
The figure is actually $103 billion, and it comes from a different Page report, published in February, which did include the cost of building new coal plants.
The November report - that National Party members have used to justify dumping net zero – does not include the $103 billion build costs. The $82 per megawatt hour figure - the cost of electricity from the new ultra-supercritical coal plants - remains.
In short: The new-plant performance numbers were kept, but the construction price tag vanished, shrinking the cost from $103 billion to build new plants to just $10 billion for tuning up those that already exist.
And another thing: The report also adds between $60 and $70 billion in grid transmission costs onto renewable energy projects – but no equivalent grid upgrade costs for coal, claiming existing transmission lines are sufficient.
When asked about this discrepancy, Holland said: “We already have all the sites with existing transmission powerlines.”
That’s incorrect.
The Australian Energy Market Operator’s official plan says the grid needs major upgrades for every kind of generation. Lines like HumeLink, Marinus Link, and QNI aren’t optional; they’re essential to maintain supply even if coal generation continues.
“Garbage in, garbage out”: Energy analyst Tim Buckley, who spent 16 years as a managing director at Citi Group and now heads public interest thinktank Climate Energy Finance, called the report “totally deceptive.”
“I think the modelling, clearly, is totally biased,” Buckley said.
“It is absolutely loading in 150% of the costs on one technology that it doesn't like, and then ignoring all of those costs on the other side”.
Buckley said a model is only useful for creating policy if it has sound assumptions, and the assumptions in the Page report are highly flawed: “I mean, at the end of the day, it's garbage in, garbage out.”
Buckley said it’s highly misleading to count transmission costs only against renewables when taxpayers have always paid to build and maintain the entire electricity grid, including the vast network that supports coal.
Australia already spends billions maintaining and upgrading the transmission system for existing energy generation, including coal.
“We have over $100 billion collectively across the nation in transmission and distribution infrastructure,” said Buckley. “So it is by far the number one cost of delivered electricity to the consumer.”
Buckley said the report misattributes a system cost to renewables alone, overlooking that grid upgrades are required no matter what powers the grid.
Thumbnail: Zac de Silva, AAP.