If we cast our minds back to the early days of the Rudd government, most people believed that the strong climate change policies espoused by the ALP had played a significant role in taking them to election victory. When the new government, just days old, ratified the Kyoto Protocol and put into motion the Garnaut review, meaningful action on climate change looked to be a foregone conclusion.

However, many in the clean energy sector who had been struggling for almost a decade to establish some semblance of an industry still wore furrowed brows. There was growing concern that many believed the war had been won and had therefore discounted the possibility of a significant defensive campaign against introduction of a carbon price. 

Of even greater concern, particularly as some of the initial new government euphoria was wearing off, that with so much focus on achieving a carbon price the piece of legislation most critical to the industry’s survival, the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target (RET), was at risk of being delayed or even forgotten. 

Many who had lived through the Howard years knew that the same people that had enormous influence over energy and climate change policy for the past few decades had not gone anywhere. If anything, the increased public interest in climate change and government willingness to act was likely to see them redouble their efforts as they prepared to fight a vicious and protracted defensive action. 

These groups know how to get their way and they remain incredibly well resourced, as we have seen in both the recent CPRS and mining tax debates.

Given this history, it was not too hard to imagine that the introduction of a carbon price was going to be a long, drawn-out fight with the most likely end result being a carbon price that would be insufficient to drive investment in new clean-energy technologies.

Complicating this for the clean energy sector was the insistence by government that the CPRS and 20 per cent RET bills be linked. So not only would the carbon price be too low for cleantech investment, but the drawn out nature of these negotiations would result in years of further delays in new clean-energy build.

History now reveals that, just as a series of events had come together to make climate change a significant issue for Australians in the 2007 Federal Election, in 2009 a confluence of events such as the GFC, 'climate gate', the supposed failure of Copenhagen, political gameplaying and the aforementioned defensive campaign resulted in a softening of public opinion, a triple defeat of the CPRS bills and, as many have argued, the end of Kevin Rudd’s time as prime minister.

Through this maelstrom, the clean energy sector has remained focused on achieving the policy outcome that was most crucial to its immediate survival – the introduction of a workable 20 per cent RET. This was the primary obligation to shareholders, with failure resulting in lost jobs and investment and consignment of Australia to the position of a clean energy backwater.

The clean energy sector must continue to have a very clear and coherent strategy on seeking to achieve policies that ensure both its immediate and long term survival. 

The work done by many in the sector, including the Clean Energy Council, has not only seen the de-linking of the 20 per cent RET from the CPRS, but the legislation passed and then significantly improved to the benefit of large and small-scale technologies. Importantly, all of this was achieved with bi-partisan support. As an industry that seeks to invest in the energy of tomorrow and create jobs in regional Australia we should make no apology for our focused, results-driven approach.

Some may claim this strategy was selfish and short-sighted and that the industry as a whole should have done more in the CPRS debate. 

For the record, many in the clean energy sector participated in the CPRS discussion both at political and policy level, but were seen by most in the media as bit players in the rolling political brawl that it eventually became. I would also point out that given the circumstances and the nature of the debate being focused on winners, losers and compensation, that the clean energy sector found it difficult to find a logical entry point into this discussion. 

So, where do we go from here? The next three years will undoubtedly present us with new challenges and opportunities. A carbon price will be pushed once again onto centre stage and the clean energy industry should continue to be part of that debate where it is logical to do so and where it can be of use. 

But just as important to the businesses involved in the clean energy industry will be the emerging discussion on new transmission networks and increasing interstate connectivity that will help release the best renewable energy resources in the shortest period of time.

For large-scale clean energy projects, planning and community engagement will continue to be at the forefront of our minds as will attracting commercially acceptable finance and ensuring we work to establish competitive clean technology industries. 

As an industry, clean energy must continue to focus on the things that will drive business growth today so that it can build the industry capacity to meet tomorrow’s climate challenges.

Rob Grant is chief executive officer of Pacific Hydro and chairman of the Clean Energy Council.