While Tony Abbott has warned against anything that would become a carbon tax equivalent by shifting costs to consumers, observers within the government and opposition are hopeful of ending the climate policy war that has led to political crises and a lost decade of investment in electricity generation.

Disputes over the science of global warming and the policy settings needed to address it have resulted in an abundance of arguments, and a dearth of investment certainty.

Coalition MPs will hold their first discussion of the Chief Scientist's keenly anticipated recommendations when Parliament returns for the final fortnight before the long winter break.

Sceptical MPs will be assured that new coal-fired power stations could reap financial incentives under the Clean Energy Target model proposed by Dr Finkel. And the author has said even older generators could be eligible for the subsidy if retro-fitted with carbon capture and storage technology.

But Dr Finkel warned that with the costs of renewable energy dropping "surprisingly", the challenge would be identifying the right technology to reduce emissions from fossil fuelled generators, and convincing investors to fund it.

The comments came as Labor's environment spokesman Mark Butler implored Mr Turnbull to muzzle senior conservative figures, led by Mr Abbott, who cast doubts on the Finkel formula before understanding it.

"We think it is the foundation for a constructive discussion, but if Malcolm Turnbull's not able to pull people like Tony Abbott into line, this process is not going to go very well," Mr Butler said.

"Everyone should calm down and read the report before providing a response.

"Tony Abbott, Craig Kelly, Eric Abetz, a growing list of very senior Liberals seem designed to undermine this process before it begins, (and) Malcolm Turnbull simply has to bring them into line."

While critics on the the right worry that the clean energy target will merely deepen the capital strike experienced by coal and gas companies, critics on the left fear the mechanism is inadequate for driving rapid carbon abatement.

Dr Finkel told Fairfax Media that the policy was designed to get the results of lower carbon output, but without the instability of supply or uncertainty of investment outlook experienced to date.

He acknowledged that under the regulatory framework favoured in his report, it was both "allowable" and "conceivable" that gas and new-technology coal generation could fall below the energy intensity threshold, enabling them to receive payment for the partial certificates they would be awarded.

But he said, a world of "constant disruption" from technological advances in renewable generation and storage was already making investments in conventional energy sources less attractive.

"Even if there was nothing there (such as the proposed CET) the world is not the same as it used to be and coal would have to compete against these disruptive technologies," he said.

"Our recommendation is an incentive for new generation, it's not a specific prohibition on coal and it's not right for people to interpret that way," he said.

It would be up to governments to decide whether a new coal-fired power station would be built once a business case has been made, he said.

Speaking on Sydney radio, Mr Abbott had named two criteria to assess the Finkel model.

"First, does its proposals take the pressure off power prices, because prices should be going down, not up, and second, does it allow coal to continue," he told 2GB.

Follow us on Facebook