Australia’s superannuation funds and business groups have reacted angrily to Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to dump emissions reduction targets from his national energy guarantee.

The Business Council of Australia (BCA), the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Australian Industry Group, all censured the government on Monday, saying the move had destroyed any sense of policy certainty.

The Investor Group on Climate Change, which represents institutional investors with total funds under management of $2tn, who have concerns about the impact of climate change on their investments, said the decision would have “serious repercussions” for energy investment in Australia.

The prime minister announced on Monday that he could not carry forward his signature energy policy to the parliament – the national energy guarantee (Neg) – because he lacked the requisite internal support to deliver it.

His announcement upset business groups and super funds who had spent months working with the government to bring the Neg to fruition.

Turnbull said rather than legislating an emissions reduction target through the Neg, his government would keep energy prices down by implementing a number of recommendations from the ACCC’s report into electricity prices, and by pursuing some form of market intervention.

That included ordering the divestiture of assets or parts of an energy business (as a last resort), pursuing court enforceable undertakings (as currently used by the ACCC in other contexts), and enforcing greater fines and penalties.

Jennifer Westacott, the chief executive of the BCA, said the government’s decision to dump emissions reduction targets from the Neg, and to propose price caps and other forms of intervention to keep prices down, would exacerbate sovereign risk.

“We support lower prices but this will not be achieved by ad hoc and extreme intervention in the electricity market which brings new risks, unintended consequences and has never worked before,” she said.

“While we understand the need to prioritise affordability, greater intervention and more regulation – including forced divestment which even the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission rejected as an “extreme measure” – is not the answer.

“By exacerbating sovereign risk and interfering in market outcomes, the proposals will discourage investment in urgently needed dispatchable power with serious consequences for prices and reliability down the track,” she said.

The Investor Group on Climate Change said the Neg would only deliver investment certainty if it included an obligation to reduce emissions.

“A lack of clarity on the emissions reduction pathway is at the heart of the investment strike in the energy sector,” the IGCC’s chief executive, Emma Herd, said.

“A Neg without emissions reduction targets will further undermine the establishment of a credible, scalable, and enduring energy and climate policy framework. Investors are looking for policy built on clear market signals. Where those policy settings are credible, capital will flow.”

Sarah McNamara, the Australian Energy Council’s chief executive, said the Neg remained the long-term solution to bringing down prices, but the policy was now in limbo.

“Recent high power prices are driven by increased wholesale prices. That’s because we’ve seen more than 5000MW of power stations close since 2012 and no like-for-like replacements.



“Replacement investment demands bipartisan policy and the lack of it remains the biggest drag on the energy market. A national climate and energy policy would mean that the government doesn’t need to risk taxpayer funds to support new generators.”

AGL Energy chose not to comment, despite past suggestions from government backbenchers that AGL should be forced to keep its ageing Liddell power station open.

James Pearson, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the business community wanted the Neg because it would provide policy certainty, and would work well with key recommendations in the ACCC’s report on electricity prices.

“There’s no doubt that the national energy guarantee has run into stormy seas over the last week or so, but it remains as compelling a proposition with the backing of the business community today as it did last week,” Pearson said.

“All that’s changed is that we’ve seen an outbreak of short-term political opportunism which runs the risk of scuppering vital, long-term policy.

“That’s why the business community, right across the country, has been unified in its call for all parties to back the national energy guarantee, and we repeat that call today.”

Innes Willox, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, said long-term investment certainty seemed “further away than ever,” and the potential for the forcible breakup of electricity businesses needed to be treated “with considerable caution”.

“The power of the threat of some intervention can be appropriate and effective as a last resort, as we saw with the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism,” he said.

“On the other hand, forced divestiture would be a serious step that was specifically ruled out by the ACCC in their recent comprehensive report on improving electricity prices.”

Rod Sims, the chairman of the ACCC, chose not to comment.