Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has rebuked Tony Abbott over his claim that chief scientist Alan Finkel’s energy review proposes a “tax on coal”, ahead of a showdown with pro-coal government backbenchers on Tuesday.

Dr Finkel’s report, which calls for a clean energy target, is being reviewed by the Turnbull government in the hope of bringing an end to a decade of energy policy uncertainty in Australia.

In a special energy edition of Q&A on Monday night, Mr Frydenberg disagreed with the former prime minister’s suggestion on Monday that the clean energy target was “effectively a tax on coal”.

“It’s not a tax on coal,” Mr Frydenberg told the panel.

The Energy Minister will present the review to the Coalition party room on Tuesday amid increasing interventions from a number of conservative backbenchers, who have already publicly questioned the merits of Dr Finkel’s recommendations.

“I’m not taking a particular policy to the party room tomorrow,” Mr Frydenberg said.

Chief scientist Alan Finkel defended his energy review on Q&A. Photo: AAP

“What I’m going to do with my colleagues is take them through the changes we’re seeing in the energy system.”

Asked by host Tony Jones if the target was a price on carbon, Dr Finkel also disagreed: “No. You’re putting an incentive on low emissions and you can interpret it however you wish.”

Despite Labor’s preference for an emissions intensity scheme, the party’s energy spokesman Mark Butler said the opposition would work with the government on the clean energy target proposal.

“What we have said is that even though we had a clear preference for a different type of model, we are willing to put that aside even though we took it to the election as our policy and talk about a clean energy target framework,” he said. 

“If that’s the only basis on which we can have discussions, we are willing to put that aside. We think it is a framework that can work.”

Dr Finkel was also forced to defend his report against the suggestion it did not do enough to tackle climate change.

“Looking at this report through that lens it doesn’t go far enough,” Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie told the program.

Ms McKenzie said the report’s recommendations would not get “emissions down as far as they need to go”.

“We need to be retiring coal-fired generators,” she said. 

“This report envisages coal-fired generators being part of the mix till 2050. We need to get to net zero emissions by then. We need to get further on renewable energy.”

If AGL can drop coal, why can’t the government’s conservative wing? @McKenzieAmanda @JoshFrydenberg & @Mark_Butler_MP respond #QandA pic.twitter.com/zEwscIkJEC

— QandA (@QandA) June 12, 2017

Dr Finkel said he had opted for carrots rather than sticks by recommending a clean energy target, rather than an emissions intensity scheme.

“We live in a world of carrots and sticks,” Dr Finkel said. “The EIS and the other mechanism that’s been talked about, is like that, where high-emitting generators – brown coal and black coal – are penalised for their emissions. And the low emissions generators are rewarded.

“The clean energy target is all about the rewards.”

He also emphasised his desire for a “neutral” approach.

“I’m surrounded by people who hate coal and surrounded by people who love coal. All I care about is lowering prices and lowering emissions,” he said.

Dr Finkel’s review comes amid industry complaints that policy uncertainty has led to increased electricity prices.

His report cites modelling that suggests the policy would result “in lower residential and industrial electricity prices than leaving policy settings unchanged under a business as usual scenario”.

The report also calls for generators to provide three years’ notice of their intention to close to avoid a repeat as what occurred with Hazelwood.