The GP described Tasmania as _importing_ more energy in 2020 that it exported, so by definition it can't be "net 100% renewables".
In a longer time frame they normally export more energy, but they are just announcing that all (used) local generation capacity is renewable, so even if we look at a longer time frame they still don't meet the definition.
Assuming they get normal rainfalls next year (and nothing else interrupts local generation) then they will likely hit the "net 100% renewables" target next year.
I believe the GP's complaint is that they're announcing something -- the ability in normal conditions to generate all their electricity through renewable means -- in a way that could easily be parsed incorrectly to mean they are doing so currently.
In a longer time frame they normally export more energy, but they are just announcing that all (used) local generation capacity is renewable, so even if we look at a longer time frame they still don't meet the definition.
Assuming they get normal rainfalls next year (and nothing else interrupts local generation) then they will likely hit the "net 100% renewables" target next year.
I believe the GP's complaint is that they're announcing something -- the ability in normal conditions to generate all their electricity through renewable means -- in a way that could easily be parsed incorrectly to mean they are doing so currently.